Karnataka High Court
Smt.Vandana W/O Ashok Korvi vs Smt.Renuka W/O Shankar Wani on 23 June, 2022
Author: R.Devdas
Bench: R.Devdas
-1-
CRP No. 100026 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.DEVDAS
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 100026 OF 2021 (-)
BETWEEN:
SMT.VANDANA W/O ASHOK KORVI
AGE 46 YEARS, OCC HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O PLOT NO.33 AND 34, CORPORATION HOUSE NO.9,
CTS NO.1293, OUT OF RS NO.142, YASHWANT BHAAN,
NANAWADI, TILAKWADI, BELAGAVI.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SANGRAM S KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SMT.RENUKA W/O SHANKAR WANI
AGE 34 YEARS, OCC HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O GONDHALI GALLI, KHANAPUR, DIST BELAGAVI,
THROUGH HER GPA HOLDER,
SHRI PARASHRAM S/O VITHOBA PATIL,
AGE 59 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE,
R/O AT POST JHUNGWADI VILLAGE, NANDGAD,
Digitally
signed by
VINAYAKA TQ KHANAPUR, DIST BELAGAVI.
BV
VINAYAKA Location:
BV Dharwad
Date:
2022.06.25 ...RESPONDENT
12:54:21
+0530
(BY SRI.SANTOSH B.RAWOOT, ADV. FOR CAVEATER RESPONDENT)
THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC, PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 29.3.2021 PASSED BY
THE 3RD ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, BELAGAVI IN
SC NO.4/2017.
THIS CRP COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT
MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
CRP No. 100026 of 2021
ORDER
R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned judgment passed by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge & CJM, Belagavi in S.C.No.4/2017 dated 29.03.2021, by which the suit filed for recovery of possession was decreed and the petitioner/defendant was directed to handover the possession of the suit premises to the respondent/plaintiff within three months from the date of the order.
2. The basic contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the original suit filed before the Small Causes Court was without jurisdiction. Therefore, an objection in this regard was raised at the hands of the petitioner before the trial court and the trial court framed issue No.3 as follows:
"3. Whether the Small Causes has jurisdiction to grant decree for possession in respect of residential premises having rent of Rs.1,000?"
-3-CRP No. 100026 of 2021
3. However, the trial court has proceeded on a wrong footing that notice was issued by the respondent/plaintiff under Section 106 of the Transfer of Proper Act and the petitioner/defendant has admitted that he is a tenant under the respondent/plaintiff. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this court to Clause 3 of Sub-section (3) of Section 2 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short), that the provisions of the Act would apply to all residential premises where the rent is not exceeding Rs.3,500/- per month in any area referred to in Part 'A' of First Schedule and Rs.2,000/- per month in any other area. Part 'A' of First Schedule of the Act covers the area within the limit of the cities situated under the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 and within the radius of 3 k.m. from the limit of the said cities. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the premises in question is situated within the limits of Belagavi City Corporation and even as per the respondent/plaintiff, the monthly rentals -4- CRP No. 100026 of 2021 agreed upon was Rs.1,000/- per month and therefore, the original suit could not have been maintained before the Small Causes Court or any civil court. Learned counsel would therefore submit that the impugned judgment is required to be set aside while holding that the suit itself was not maintainable before the Small Causes Court.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff seeks to contend that Small Causes Courts are required to consider a suit for possession of immovable property or for recovery of an interest in such property, in terms of Clause 4 of the Schedule appended to the Small Causes Courts Act, 1964.
5. Having heard the learned counsels and on perusing the petition papers, this court has also found that this issue regarding the jurisdiction of the civil court in the matter of eviction of a tenant in the light of the provisions contained in the Act fell for consideration before this court in the case of Anantswami Vs Smt.Radha Srinath and Another reported in 2012(4) Kar.L.J. 402. His Lordship -5- CRP No. 100026 of 2021 Justice S.Abdul Nazeer, then as a Judge of this court considered the provisions contained in the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 vis-à-vis Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and while noticing the express provisions contained in Section 50 of the Act which bars the jurisdiction of the civil court in respect of certain matters, held that if schedule property is covered under Part 'A' of the First Schedule to the Act, civil court cannot exercise jurisdiction in respect of same as it is ousted by necessary implication. It was held that Karnataka Rent act is a complete code in itself and once the civil court having held that defendant is a tenant under plaintiff in respect of suit schedule premises, it could not have directed delivery of possession of the said property. It was therefore held that, when the tenancy is governed under the provisions of the Karnataka Rent Act, the civil court has no jurisdiction to pass a decree for possession of suit schedule property.
6. In the light of the above, the contentions of the petitioner regarding the jurisdiction of the Small Causes -6- CRP No. 100026 of 2021 Court to go into the question of determination of tenancy or considering the prayer of the respondent/plaintiff seeking possession of the premises, is answered accordingly. Consequently, this court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER
i) The civil revision petition is allowed.
ii) The impugned order dated 29.03.2021 passed in S.C.No.4/2017 by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge & CJM, Belagavi is hereby quashed and set aside.
iii) However, since this court has held that the Small Causes Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff, liberty is also reserved to the respondent/plaintiff to initiate action under the provisions of the Karnataka Rent Act. -7- CRP No. 100026 of 2021
iv) If such a petition is filed, the court having jurisdiction to entertain a petition for eviction shall also take into consideration the time spent by the respondent/plaintiff before the Small Causes Court.
v) Ordered accordingly.
SD
JUDGE
MBS