Avoid Conflicting Decrees: Bombay High Court Transfers Eviction Suits From Small Causes Court To City Civil Court

"The Court trying any suit transferred or withdrawn under this section from a Court of Small Causes shall, for the purposes of such suit, be deemed to be a Court of Small Causes." Bombay High Court, in a significant ruling dated 25 August 2026, held that eviction suits pending before the Small Causes Court in Mumbai can be transferred to the Bombay City Civil Court and clubbed with a suit for specific performance concerning the same property to prevent conflicting judgments.

A bench of Justice Rajesh S. Patil observed that the legal imperative to avoid a multiplicity of proceedings and inconsistent judicial outcomes outweighs the procedural rigidity often cited against such transfers.

The applicants filed a suit for specific performance in 2015 based on a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) regarding the conversion of their tenancy rights into ownership rights. Subsequently, the respondents, claiming to be the landlords, initiated eight separate eviction suits against the applicants in the Small Causes Court. The applicants sought to transfer these eviction suits to the Bombay City Civil Court, where their specific performance suit was pending, to ensure they are heard together before the same judge.

The primary question before the court was whether a suit pending in the Small Causes Court, Mumbai, can be transferred to the Bombay City Civil Court under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). The court was also called upon to determine if such a transfer is permissible in light of the specific jurisdictional provisions of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, and whether the City Civil Court would retain the character of a Small Causes Court upon such transfer.

Scope of Section 24 CPC

The court underscored that Section 24 of the CPC confers broad powers upon the High Court to transfer suits between subordinate courts to ensure justice and prevent procedural abuse. Justice Patil noted that while the respondents argued that the City Civil Court might not be "competent" to hear rent matters under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, this argument ignores the "deeming" provision found in Section 24(4) of the CPC.

Deeming Provision Ensures Competence

The court clarified that once a suit is transferred from a Small Causes Court to a Civil Court, the latter is legally transformed for the purposes of that specific litigation. The court held that the Bombay City Civil Court, upon receiving these transferred matters, would step into the shoes of a Small Causes Court, thereby satisfying the requirement of competence. This effectively neutralizes the argument that the City Civil Court lacks the statutory jurisdiction inherent to the Small Causes Court.

The Danger of Conflicting Decrees

The court emphasized the practical necessity of consolidating these suits to protect the integrity of the judicial process. It noted that if the specific performance suit were decreed in favor of the tenants—transforming them into owners—while the eviction suits were simultaneously decreed in favor of the landlords, the court would be left with two diametrically opposed and unenforceable decrees.

"The parties would be relieved of the need of adducing the same or similar documentary and oral evidence twice at two different trials. Hence, both M.C.A.s need to be allowed."

Consolidation to Prevent Abuse

The court analyzed previous precedents, including the ruling in Ulhas Harishchandra Dhargalkar vs. Padmakar Vasant Desai, and reaffirmed that transferring suits under Section 24 is a well-established practice to save judicial time and party resources. The court found that because the parties and the subject matter were effectively common, a joint trial was the only logical route to a final and fair adjudication.

Concluding that the ends of justice necessitated the transfer, the court allowed the Miscellaneous Civil Applications. The court directed that the eight eviction suits be transferred to the Bombay City Civil Court within four weeks and consolidated with the pending specific performance suit. The court further ordered that the hearing of these suits be expedited, with a stern instruction to both parties to cooperate to avoid unnecessary delays.

Date of Decision: 25 August 2026