Sri Abdul Wajid vs Sri A S Onkarappa on 27 December, 2010

[Cites 59, Cited by 58]

Karnataka High Court

Sri Abdul Wajid vs Sri A S Onkarappa on 27 December, 2010

Equivalent citations: 2011 (2) AIR KAR R 78

Bench: Manjula Chellur, D.V.Shylendra Kumar

1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2oJ_.___o
PRESENT _ V _ 1'
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJULA 
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D37. 
AND V ._   .   ._
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE:
CRP No.54] of 2007  c1--§P1§,r6$.:31»Téj2007. E571/2006,
318/2006, 346/2006, 438/2006; 410;/2006, 664/2007,
431/2007, 2/A2004, 4..3.0L200.7%..§g@[2Q'Q?," 71342004,
.0'1547/200E,46172007g

In CRP   A' 

BetweC'n: r ' _ '

ABDUL    »--  J  PETITIONER

(BY S§{1; 1,, SR1Nm{$S EAEU «Sr
SE1. EC,M,__ ESHWARAPPA, ADVSJ

A'S4'ONKAR7§\;Spg;=   RESPONDENT

 .  *..[B'{ SRI'.G:. S. BALAGANGADHAR &

A. .SRI.'iV';" NAGARAJA, ADVS. FOR C / R}

THIS CRP FILED [US 38 OF TEE SMALL CAUSES COURT

 jf  ..A.CTACA:NS'1"1fHE JUDGMENT AND DEGREE DATED: 7.8.2007
 PASSED IN SMALL CAUSE CASE No.74/2004 ON THE FILE OF'
THE H ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE [SR.DN.). SHIMOGA. DECREEING

THE. SUIT FOR EVICTION.



 

JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BANGALORE [SCCH NO..1},
DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR FJEC'I'E\/IENT AND POSSESSION AS
NO'l'MA}N']"AINABI_,E.  

In CRP No.318 of 2006:

Between:

PNARAYANANNA1R@   "   A 
P NARAYANASWAMY 8: ANOTHER   PETITIONERS A

{BY SR1. PRAKASH YELI, ADV]  C

And:

CHUNNILAL V     

{BY SR1. STj11.xf;ARLﬁQ1AR~z§A.L,i;OOR;  EOR C /R 1

THIS CRP :E11,ED U/S--1'8_OF THE SMALL CAUSES COURT
ACT AGAIN-STjTHE*;IUDGMENT AWE)' DECREE DATED: 21.4.2006
PASSED IN SC'._-NO.1..3/1.999 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. CIVIL
JUDO'r..{SR.'D.N..;A Arr RAIOHUR. DECREEING THE SUIT OF THE
P1A1N'HPP«.PORV RECOVERY? OF POSSESSION AND MESNE
PROFITS.'-.D1RECT1NC.; THE.DEEENDANTS TO HAND OVER THE
VACANT PQSSESSION OF THE SUET PROPERTY TO THE
PLAENTIFF WITHIN' 15 DAYS.

* in CR? r¢g;3E;_5_ of 2006:

ﬁétweerg' ..  "

My/S. H1NDGS1'AN DRUG HOUSE  PETITIONER

  ..(HY_ SR1: HJ. SANGHVI, ADV. 1

O  And:

 N CHANDRASHEKAR AND SONS

V'  AND OTHERS  RESPONDENTS

{BY SR}. 8. NANDAGOPAL. ADV. FOR R1 TO R4)

THIS CRP FILED U/S 18 OF THE SMALL CAUSES COURT
ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DEGREE DATED: E4.2.2006



 

I "  ..   I

4

PASSED IN SC NO.I706/2002 ON THE FILE OF THE CHIEF
JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BANGALORE ESCCH NO.I],
DECREEING THE SUIT FOR THE RELIEF OF EJECTMENT AND
POSSESSION.

In CRP No.4-38 of 2006:

@539; _ . _
B N RAGHU  __-...VPEi1f'IfIfI'ONEIie__A V ' 

{BY SR1. M. SHIVAMUR'I'HY, ADV.) 

And:
SMT. V N HEMAVATHI AND OTHERS» V'   I

[BY SR1. S. 'I'HIMMAIAH__B:._ADV. EOI:..I;I..,'1'O R3)

THIS CRIB. ITILED II/SJISOF THE SMALL CAUSES COURT
ACT AI3AIIISfI"'fI'IAIEL;II;I1:)'O.I\/IEN'I' DEGREE DATED: 19.4.2006
PASSED IN SCINQ. 35228/~2.o06 ON THE FILE OE THE XV ADDL.
SIVIALLCAUSES  "MAI'O HALL UNIT, BANGALORE ESCCH
NO.1.9}, 'PAR'1"'LY' OEO)REE~INO« SEEKING EJECIMENT.

In CRP NOI492 of'--2d0é.=°

 ' NAIK D N  PETITIONER

'(1=3Y~SRI.' I\«I.j'j_RANGAPPA, ADV.)

 ., P 'V ._LAKSH.M1NARAYANA RAO  RESPONDENT

"'.rSY"SRI. K.V. NARASIMHAN, ADV.)

THIS CRP FILED U / S 18 OF THE SMALL CAUSES COURT
ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED: 22.4.2006
PASSED IN SC NO.-4}/I999 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE
[JR DN.,} 8: JIVIFC, GUDIBANDA, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR
EJECTMEN1'.

IV



*2

3 V'  . {TEE D.E;-NAEESH, ADVJ

 'I  «D P NARESH 3:. ANOTHER

In CRP No.664 of2007:

Between:

CHANDRA SHEKAR C S PE'E'£TIONER_ "._V
{BY SR1. (LS. SURESH. ADV.)
And:

SOHANRAJ   ~   'Q 

THIS CRP FILED ms 18' OF THE   'C.OLII§T..V
ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DEGREE DI<&TE}D:._V1V4.8:.2007V V v
PASSED IN SC NO.1360/2004 'QN'~..'1'HE FILE -QFTFISE-.E IV ADDL

JUDGE, BANGALORE, DISMISSIN'G_fI*HE SUI'1"--FQR EJE;C'I'MENT.
In CRP No.431 ofzoofh.  ' ' M N

Between:

M/S. MANOHAR"EfE3: _XTIL:}§S§    PETITIONER

{BY SR1. PARASv.;:;AI_N;.TADMI)-...___ . '

And:

D PAINTARESI-'4I.V{';§'V1XNO'TH.}§3R  REZSPONDENTS

"  _ THIS..'"CRP--EILED U/S 18 OE THE SMALL CAUSES COURT

 ACT AGAINST .T=H'E JUDGMENT AND DEGREE DATED: 14.2.2007

PASSED IN$;_S.C NO.1837/2002 ON THE FILE OF' THE I ADDL
JU'L'~)GE_,*COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BANGALORE, DECREEING
THE SUIT FOR EJECTMENT.

  gm-cR15"No.2 of2004:

 'L'-étiﬁeenz

PETITIONERS

[BY SR1. S. SHEKAR SI~IE'TI'Y. ADV.)



And:

M/S. MANOHAR FABRICS  RESPONDENT
[BY SR1. PARAS JAIN. ADV.) ' T

THIS CRP FILED U/S 18 OF' THE SMALL CAUSES
ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DEGREE DATED; A2_4.0.'200'3 r 4_
PASSED IN SC NO.1838/2002 ON THE EILE..OE5TH*EV'1ADDE. 

JUDGE, SMALL CAUSES COURT...~~BANGALOREf »{SCCH_-1'0-1.3,
DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR RECOVERY QF' MONEy...__ *   T_T ;

In CRP No.43!) of 2007:

Between:

M/S. MANOHAR TEXTILES  -  PETITEONER
[BY SR1. PARASJAIN,A1"3VA.')--. V "  " "

And: .... ..
D P NALRESH  "  h  RESPONDENTS

{BY SRL S;4--.SHEKA1:__< S:gE"1tfY, ADV. 'FOR C /R}

 THIS CEP" '-E:EED.U/S 18 OF THE SMALL CAUSES COURT

V'  ACT ASA1NS:T THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED: 20.7.2007
. P'ASSE1_D'«1N.u§\/i~!.SC NO.129/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE 1 ADDL

'q'U_I3GE';«._COUR'ffOF SMALL CAUSES. BANGALORE, DISMISSING

 TE-:.E%.15ET*1<:';ON-EILED U/O 9 RULE 13 CPC AS BARRED BY

L1MiTA'1j1ON';_ 

 In CfRP;;_{\TO.546 of 2007.-

 * Between:

A'  IVHNOODAHIMA  PETITIONER

[BY M / S. DI-IANANJAYA ASSOCIATES, ADVS.}

And:
K ISBRAH I M BAIG . . . RESPOND f13N'I.'



[BY SR}. M.I.. DAYANANA KUEVIAR 8;
SRI. AYAZ AHMED, ADVS]

THIS CRP FILED U/ S 18 OF THE SMALL 
ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DAT['ED:'A3Q:6.2»0(S)7 ' 
PASSED IN SC NO.I5I63/2006 ON '13-IE FILE.~OFf_TIiIE'--.XV.ADDI;.. I
SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, MAYOHALI, UL-'\IIT.M "BANGA_LORE, I

DECREEING THE SUIT FOR EJECTMEN_'I.' AND REDE},-I.V.Ij3RY__Q'F
VACANT POSSESSION OF THE SU1T'SCHEU'U1,E:..PROR.I3Rf.If1I.._  .

In CRP No.713 of 2004:

Between:

PHILOMINA& OTHERS  'I  S'  f,LS"PETI'FION'ERS

{BY SR1. VIGDf'ESI;iWAR;3S. SHASTR1:'AOV.ifA
And: I I I I

MATHES"KA.ITAN EIEZRNANDES 

& ANOTHER  RESPONDENTS

[BY SR1.V';:?, IKIJLILARNI 

 I"I'?!IS CR1" FILED U/S 18 OF THE SMALL CAUSES COURT

" *  __ ACir'AG_--A1NST THEQEUDGMENT AND DEGREE DATED: 17.1.1998

PASSEIQIN.  NO.5/I994 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE,

 ' MR; .ON..4,_}'KARw.AR, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR EVICTION.

133 Na: 5247 of 2004.-

' . Betweén;

 ., SI'iI'y'A RAMA UPADYAYA  PETi'I"IONER

  {BY SR1. SSHEKAR SHETTY, ,ADV.}

And:

RAJA SATYANARAYANA SEITY  RESPONDENT

{BY SRI. VB. SHIVAKUMAR. ADV. FOR C/R)



THIS CRP FILED U/S 18 OF THE SMALL CAUSES COURT
ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED: 

PASSED IN SC NO.3'7I/2002 ON THE EILE OE;'I*RE;_~C_III.EI~"=%
JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BANGAIJORE."-DECRE'E?NG.'D '
THE SUIT FILED BY TI-IE RES_I?ONDEN'2* AFIE15.{E.IN".'_'_FOR_V V'

EJECTIVIENT.
In CRP No.461 of2007:

SHANKAR RAO  . _ pE*I'I'IiIONER

[BY SRI., PRADEEP NAII§"K.V:."ADV.)ff.,'«:. A A 

K     J 

SINCE  I  "HIS  A E'  '  ' __ RESPONDENTS

[BY : EOR R1 81 R2}
THISE OF THE SMALL CAUSES COURT

ACIVAGMNST 'I'II.E_V'JVUDGMEN'I* AND DECREE DATED: 5.7.2007

E V' "-PASSEDi..'IN SC I\IO.2I0'6'/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE IX ADDL.
 JIJDGE,~ SMALL CAUSES, BANGALORE {SCCH N037].
UIT FOR EJEICTMENT.

RESERVED ON : 14.09.2009

7._PRONO'UN'CED ON : 27.12.2010

"_ V.  EPHESE CIVIL REVISION PETITIONS BEING REFERRED TO

._ '  TIIE 'FULL BENCH OF THIS I~ION'BLE HIGH' COURT FOR
 'I -OPINION HAVING BEEN RESERVED AND COMING FOR
 PRONOUNCEMENT ON THIS DAY, K.N. KESHAVANARAYANA, J.,

DELIVERED THE FOLLOVVING ORDER/OPINIOE\§:~





10

Article 4 of Schedule to KSCC Act and the declaration of

law that;

(1) the Court of Small Causes can
cognizance of such suits which are 

ejectment of tenants of the premises  ll
Act applies and not in resp-e'ct=f:f~of"=.. the 

tenants/persons who occupy Vother;_p-:re-rnisyesl"t'o 
which the KR Act does not  
tenancy has either been _detern_1ined oyrrhas .cof;r1e'
to an end by efﬂux of tiniepbor vvithdrawalwof' the
same and   C 

[2] in respect----._of" _th_e ejec"t1n.erit_zof tenants of
the premises to whichthvc"KR_.Act_';do'es not apply,
relief would'--have-"'to'b'e 'sought;  by filing an

apprpopriate fault beforel' th..eVVv_C5ity Civil Court which
alone 'can, entertain such suits even if bare
ejelctrrient  and arrears of rent is
souglitl requires' 'to'  reconsidered.

 the 'border of reference does not specify

 theiipointy' s on  the opinion of the full bench is
  'going through the orders passed by the

C" geariied' judge as well as by the Division Bench

and aftenhearing the learned counsels appearing on

 bothllsides, we find that the opinion of the Full Bench is

 sought on the following points:

(1) Whether the Court of Small Causes
constituted under KSCC Act has jurisdiction
to take cognizance of suit filed for ejectrnent
by the land lord against the tenant in respect
of the premises to which KR Act does not
apply, and the lease of which has either



it

come to an end by efﬂux of time limited
thereby 01" has been duly determinedvV.by"r._V
issuing notice in accordance with law   V
permission to occupy has been withd_ra_wn?.'  *' dd

(ii) Whether the decision of t1'Ie'v'divi,situn'.V
bench in Sarojarnmas ,'case= {s1_1pr'a].__V 1a;IVS'"VV_ 7
down correct law'?  I '  " » 

3. The legislative backdrop; 

The provisions_..V:?;)_f  Control Act
1961 [for short  force up to
31/12/ZQO  categories of the
tenantegiv  commercial or
premises  purposes. The said
Act amorisgppother.thingsdyprovided for the control of rents

ar1»dt,evictions." '*It__h_a.d provided protection to the tenants

' from  .._Section 21 contained in part V of the said

A.ct"idea1t.v-'With eviction of tenants. Jurisdiction of the

 courtsto pass any order or decree for possession in
 respect of any premises as defined under the Act, in

d  favour of the land lord against the tenant had been

barred as per Sub--sec. (1) of section 21 of the Act
notwithstanding anything contained in any other law in

force or any contract. However proviso to sub~sectio11



of which exceeded six thousand rupees. Initially, the

erstwhile Courts of Munsiff in the state were coristituted

as the 'Court' under the Act. However, later:

Bangalore city, the court of the:~th'en. yC1'vil   still'

later Court of Small Causes till  «reple'a7lle'dVV

with effect from 3lw12--200.l:'§"~..had.l'been, as

the 'Court' under V  Act';  it respect of the
premises situated   V was not
applicable;    buildings to
which   Der Section 31; and
in re:;pé'¢t    the Act itself was not
applicable',  no protection with regard to

eviction, and the land lords of such premises were

 entitled to seek egfectment of the tenant and possession

 of." téhe.4f=pvrc.rii.ises upon determination of tenancy in

acc.ord__ancel Awith the general law of the land namely

  Transfer of Properties Act, by filing a suit before the civil

'._co'u1*t as provided by Civil Procedure Code, or in

C '' "accordance v\n'th the procedure laid down under any

special law made in that regard.



I 'I

"one lakh rupees" in Bangalore city. "twenty;«_
five thousand rupees" in other places, 
be cognizable by a court of small causes'.   ''

Provided that the state gOV€1'I1II.j1.€'3I1I,Ai_:ii1"
consultation with the High Court; _
notiﬁcation. Clirect thatMa1'l"sui't.s of
the value does not exceed1'thi*'ee:tthoi_isand"~~.'Y7.A
rupees shall be cognizabl_e*by aigcboiilrti of'; it
small causes 'ifrientioned '  
notification.  b  l 

Section '9_;."jy'-Excluisiire.._' j.ﬁ1=isdiction of
Court of smali causes;-5 expressly
providedeby or  any.i.o'i;her law for
the tiniebeiing in foi*ce,"'a_s1-iitvcognizable by a
court'   c_a._iis.es'-7shval1_ not be tried by
any Qtheijcotirt. h:}w.icf1gg' jugrisdiction, with in
the' -loiical "i§=.mi£s..yV"of the""jurisdiction of the
7court  by which the suit is

triable. ' _  _  
7.  sLib'.secy.._"_.'e{l} of sec. 8 bars the Courts of

Small Causes" 'fr.oH1jr_1_Aytaking cognizance of suits specified

 .,th.e"~s'c.h"ed_1i1e, though sub-section (2) empowers

'Courts  Causes to take cognizance of all suits of

civil of which the value does not exceed its

V'  npecuniary limits, of course subject to the exceptions

'mentioned in the schedule. Section 9 has barred the

jurisdiction of all other courts from trying any suit



33
which is cognizable by a Court of Small Causes.

Therefore the Courts of Small Causes in the statjehave

exclusive jurisdiction to take cognizance of _;suits~..o_i7a:iVi«l

nature which are triable by the said cot1;rt;...:There are pass. 9 

many as 40 Articles in the SchedulvelllWhich'C'includes

almost all suits of civil nature. Onlyllverycv';fei1gvcategoriest"

of civil suits are cognizable   Courts. The
Article in the schedule' 'relevjaritVp[V'~fo1i- our purpose is
Article 4 which-reads"as»  C 

(4)   4'suit--.'_forjpthepossession of immovable

 or3'ifor'l'tl1te recovery of an interest in
'Such pro-pert}: but"'--.n'ot including a suit for
ejectrneiit where  h " = 

A  the property has been let under a
 lease, or 'permitted to be occupied, by written
instrurnent or orally, and

A  {b}.,--:"the court of small causes would be
p conipetlent to take cognizance of a suit for
 therent of the property, and

_ (c) the only substantial issue arising
 for the decision is as to whether the lease
has been determined by eftlux of the time
limited thereby or has been determined by a
notice in accordance with the law for the
time being in force in respect of such lease,
or the permission to occupy has been

withdrawn: J



I'?

8. Thus, though a suit for recovery of possession
of immovable property or any interest there::in is not

cognizable by a Court of Small Causes, 

ejectment is cognizable by a Court of 

provided the three conditions enu_m_erat_e.dl'in'.claus_es fa)  z

to (c) of Article 4 of the Sched1ule:._'_'a:e'e  

light of Sec.8 (2), even such:"'suitsA.i'or llshould" V

be within the pecuniary limits'--.of-.,ythe Covurtvvﬁof Small

Causes as prescribed lthereixif 

Act 1958   Act was enacted to amend
and corisolidate*lav.rs  to court fees and valuation

of ,si1litst.in thestate of Karnataka. Section 41 deals with

.A suits loetweenlandlord and tenant. As per sub--section

 '(2l).'~in  recovery of immovable property from a

tenlarithaincluding a tenant holding over after the

  termination of tenancy, fee shall be computed on the

'pretnium, if any, and the rent payable for the year next

"before the date of presenting the plaint. As per section

50, in the absence of a speciﬁc provision in the Act or in

any other law regarding value of the suit for the purpose



9,0

of determining the jurisdiction of the courts, Value for
the purpose of computing the fee payable under the Act
shall be the Value for the purpose of the jurVisd_ilct_ion

also.

10. KR Act which came into forc_e'l,on« 

repealed KRC Act. This piece oi;le§islation_*3Wavs

to provide for regulation of and eviction of tenants,

in certain areas of .tl"ie' statnell ofl;l€.ai'nata1{al'land for the
matters connected therei2_xrith'lor  thereto. As

per subsectionsfi)  ::(2)£ ofsieetlonoé read with Part A

of first __   -the second schedule, the
provisions of the are applicable to the areas

witl§1ineA.the "'lir_nits of cities constituted under the

 'Municipal Corporation Act 1976 and Within a

  from the limit of such cities. Except

sectionvsp  to 22 occurring in chapter IV which deals

  W'it--h registration of middlemen or estate agents, all

other provisions of the Act are applicable to the areas

"mentioned in Part--B of first schedule namely areas

within the limits of the City Municipal councils

constituted under Karnataka Municipalities Act 1964.



Q1
Sub section (3) of Section 2 of the Act exempts the

application of the entire Act to the premises specified in

clauses (a) to [h]. As per clause (a), premises

to the State government, central governrn_erlt;..:allloclall"

authority, a Muzarai or r'e'iig1ous--, org ch.aritabi.e

institution and a Wakf: _as  lclauselplyupjj , 

belonging to Cowoperativel"societies:' {c)V

buildings belonging  established
under the Karnatakav'lAgri.lcuivtui=e.llilljolduce Marketing

Regulations   are' "exemplte'd--.frlom the application

of the   Act is not applicable to
any tenancy -ordothe--r:relationship created by a grant

frorn, the 'State or ti1el"Centra1 government in respect of

l  any premises taken on lease or requisitioned by such

   per clause (e) the Act is not applicable

to---..__an_y*piremises of which deemed or standard rent

 nexceeds' Rs.3500/«per month if it is situated in any area

 --.r"reierred to in part--A of first schedule and Rs.2O00/«M per

A  V. ._..month in any other areas. As per clause (1) the Act is not

applicable to any premises for a period of fifteen years

from the date of its construction or substantial

 .

/H,_..W§ renovation. As per clause [g], the Act is not applicable to any premises used for non--residential purpose excluding premises having a plinth area not ..e}:.c_'e.eding fourteen square meters used for commercial As per clause (h) the State government.'_byVl4a'criotiiicationl' can exempt all or any of the 'Act' building or group of the iiiteres't--ivof'"piiblicl§' Thus the Act is not ap.plicia_:blle"'»i..t0 rnajori'ty of the premises situated inllthe ii'ivii.ic1i it is extended and tenants. have no protectionf.fi*or;i eviction and the landpillordsw. sifilch_l"p.rcmiseslV are entitled to recover possession of"s:ucl1«.__p1-emises by ﬁling a suit for ejec'.rrI1entlll"beforev" the civil court after determination of pleasie p'r.ovided"bylSection ll] of 'l'.P.Act. ._4Ii.¥.JI)AIl(3f?L'_L._Iil;i21"-§Q.CEDENTS:

rom the various decisions of this court, it is rinoticed that till the repeal of KRC Act and advent of KR l7.Alct":on 31/ 12/2001, there was consistent opinion that it respect of the premises to which part V of KRC Act was not applicable by virtue of section 31, and the tenancy of which had been determined as provided by ,-W3 O23 section 111 of TP Act, a suit for ejectment only was cognizable by court of small causes subject _to the pecuniary jurisdiction, though there wa's..:"««.._some controversy as to Whether a suit filed for ejectrnent and'; also for mesne proﬁts for the use and occupatioiiyof the ' premises after the determination7..l.loi': the cognizable by a court of '

12. In Rama:-§::fi"~.P. fﬁsgfirishnantoorthy I ILR 2002 Karnataka the j_---that arose for consideration iearneld._Vs'ixlng1*e" judge of this court was;

l' 4' §'To=.a 'tenancy to which the Karnataka _ Rent.C'ont1*oll'Ac't*applies, however, to which the Parts}/' of the Act does not apply, what A' iwouid be the position of the tenant after

--vde~te:rf1'ination of the tenancy by termination it .efﬁ'ux of time'? "

In-..the* of the definition of ' tenant' occurring in section '.3 (r) of KRC Act and the decision of the Division l ";_lB'e1:{ch of this court in B.S.Giridhar- v-- P.V. Shetty (ILR " -"T1984 Kar. 1115] it was ruled that a tenant continuing in possession of a nonwresidential building the monthly rent. of which exceeded RS500/M, even after the '*3' £151 determination of the tenancy, continues to be a tenant as such he is liable to pay the agreed rent to the landlord even after determination and his pos_ses"sion of the premises after the determination of not become unlawful, therefore, q1,1e'stion"o'f paying damages for use and oclcup-ationlllof_'thle for the eriod subse uenttodeterrriinatiori of.:le'asé does' not arise. In View of this itywa,is'--fur.ther rulvedﬁﬁhat when the building has beer1'dlc't permitted to be occupied orally and if the monthlyllrental 'ti1e"leasedh.Hpremises exceeds Rs. 500 / _ , the such premises can maintain a suitfor eje'ct:m'en't of tenant from the premises and .- al'so:' cl§ai.ri1..yfor reritllof the property after termination of the Value of the subject matter of such suit not exceed Rs.25,000/--(subsequently .enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/-in respect of Bangalore city] l "lathe-'suit is cognizable by court of small causes.

13. In Bangalore printing «SA publishing Co.Ltd.~v~ Sowcar T Premnath [ILR 2004 Karnataka 98], (disposed of on 22/10/03) another learned single judge oiflm of this court Was considering the correctness of the order passed by the court of Principal Civil 'lt}r'!1dg€ [Jr.Dn.] Mysore, in a suit for ejectment in resp.ect.__'oi'Tj'the premises to which the provisions of applicable, rejecting the defendant for amendment.»'of__his {mjitten 3 Way of amendment the iitranted to urge a plea that thevsinit 'ejelcltrnent iscognizable by court of srn'a.l_l 'L8 [2] read with Article 4 of as the Value of the mthin the pecuniary lirnitslofl the causes and in View of the eXc1u_.sionllof._th'e.jurisdiction of the civil court to try such siiit ctognizable ljjfllcourt of small causes as per section .ll&,"1;~_tlhe.l'c,fiiri1lV jtsiiirt had no jurisdiction to try the said suit. In-.._thi_s the petitioner therein [the defendant in the suit] placed reliance on the decision in Rarnesh P l case (supra). As admittedly the plinth area of the "premises was more than 14 square meters and the premises was being used for non-residential and commercial purposes, in View of section 2 (3) (g) of KR J!' égats 5% Act, the said Act was not applicable to the premises involved in that suit. Therefore this court held that? the relationship of the parties therein in relation subject premises is governed by pro\ris.iori's..Vo'f:'Tl? and not the Rent Act. This court upon the determination ofr't.e_nancy of a te1':ant of ";such_", premises as required by secltion if the tenant does not vacate" and ce.nt'i.riues_>in possession of the premises, his statu.s.hwfill' not to be that of a tenant case of the tenants governed 'bxyzf,thé:f:'§:[5'1'ov'isicr1slof"Rent Act and in such a the lessor is only to file a suit for _posses4sion'to' recover the premises by approaching . {ordinary civlilmcourt and not Rent Court. Thereafter, to sections 8, 9 and Article 4 of KSCC fu'r'therl held that as the said Act itself makes ..distinction between a suit 'for possession' and a 'suit for ""._vej'eC'tment', a suit for ejectment in the context would A' "only mean cases where suit for possession are not covered, while a suit for possession could only mean in all cases where a transaction is governed by the r;

@/..

.23 provisions of TP Act, therefore the remedy of the lessor against the lessee on the determination of lease is'"to file only a suit for possession before an ordinary..civil'cou'rt and such a suit cannot be termed has'~._aCf_suit "for 'ejectment' and since a suit for§pos_s'esVsior1i'is.__.:one_ofVthe suits excepted from the cognizance of thenoourt «of fﬁriiall' Causes, in View of section readl"W.ithdArti:cle 4, the jurisdiction of ordiné,ry-- civil eiccluded. The decision in Ramesh case"vvasI,_distinguished on the groundin case by'.lviI"'tue of section 31 of KRC ofullthe said Act relating to protection of Vte'n'_ijants._'against eviction was made not applicable' the prernxises involved therein which was a I1'on--r5e"sidlential«building the monthly rent of which laesoo/-- while in all other respects the KRC Act was applicable to the premises, in the light of the ..decision of this court in Giridhar's case. the relationship l lqloi" iandlord and tenant did not snap notwithstanding the "termination of tenancy as per section 111 of TP Act. as such, the landlord was required to file only a suit for ejectrnent and since the value of the subject matter of 33;?

the suit in Ramesh P Seth's case was within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court of srnaii causes, the suit was cognizable by court of small caus_es_""on1y therefore the court was right in ordering ret_u"1*n'of--.piaint p in that case.

14. in M/s Khandelwal Nisar Ahmed [2004 AIR-K--a}';':~1cR;" 25'?f?:1j'v_;[Ei-eeided or}

2 / 6/ 2004} another V1earned'""Singie"Judgeofrthis court expressed a slightly different case the court was dea1in;g"'w:ith Egan: by the tenant quest-ion_infgVthe«._1:e'galityand [correctness of the judgment and defcreei pa'sse'd' civil court in a suit filed for possession 'and rnesne profits after determination of t as-provided under section 111 of T P Act. By 'ptla.-cinfg' reliance on the decision in Rarnesh P Seth's case the contention of the Appellant/ tenant therein. was that it ~ after the determination of the tenancy, the occupation of fgthe premises by the tenant is not that of a trespasser but that of a statutory tenant within the definition of 'tenant' under KRC Act, therefore question of grant of damages or rnesne profits wouid not arise as such the 7 landlord would be entitled to recover only the agreed monthly rent even after termination of tenancy and nothing more and the artificiai prayer for mesne in addition to the prayer of ejectrnent would___iio't _ the jurisdiction of the court of small cau.s'e's;-: the" is decree passed by the civil courttis This court framed the 'floll-ozvvinlgv. two *%iuesvti.ons for"

consideration:

[ 1] Whether llavvj 'afterltlillew . 'termination of tenan__cyv__ under" 'tllﬁ "Ti*ansfer_l' "of Property Act, vs%ou§d- ter1'ant'tVco'nti.n.t1es to be a {-2} «suit for possession and me"-sne _ profits excluded from the ' =cogniz-anceof Small Causes Courts'?. . After the law iaid down by the division .".i'-.tl?3.S.Giridhar's case that even after de't,erm'iit-ation of tenancy as per the provisions of the TP Atct, the tenant would continue to be a statutory tenant ll"..vvithin the definition of KRC Act the landlord can "lrecover only the agreed rent till the delivery of possession of the premises and not the mesne profits 3C} for use and occupation, and referring to the change in the legal definition of a statutory tenant. in KR Act and also non-application of the entire KR Act pito»-.4il_rlon-- residential premises except to the area of which does not exceed_;.1..4_ square*--_and"

also referring to the decision in and in Bangalore printing""~andCApublislrlivngz:'c.0mipany.l.C' Ltd's case as also the proVi_s.1ons of section 8p,3Art1cle 4 and 10 of schedule to answered the questions stpatiing thiatlltlre Causes Court cannot entertain laeaiéstiit 7:;i¢'r poslsessionvwith damages or rnesne profitsbutp can"ei;ntert.ai'nV~"a suit only for ejectment as envisageduuI1V§1er7Article. 4. The court went on to observe the general principle is that the jurisdiction A it be determined by the averrnents in the p1'a.int..,"2?*Lrticle 4 of scheduled to KSCC Act makes a A.d,e__pa.rt'are from this general principle and the

7.jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court is made "dependent upon the contentions raised in the written statement and at the will of the defendant and if on the basis of the contentions raised in the written statement ,- 3:

. / /4,-

u'" 3' ..e:~W 3! any issue other than the one mentioned in clause {c} of Article 4 of schedule arises for consideration, then the court of Small Causes has to return the plaint section 16 of KSCC Act for re-presentation'.beforeC'they:

civil court for adjudication, thefefore'until-;'t.h_e«written". statement is filed, the jurisdiction'..of'--the coi;rlt"o'f causes remains uncertain. Tl1e'icourtl"fur'teherobserved that the special classificatican ._Vcaiegory of landlords envisaged in Article 4 be intelligible and currentiiyllltfnot rwarrantledf "by---~-factual exigency. Thereforelfthelinpcouritlwals the opinion that the abolition of the l"SVm-all may not pose serious pract.ic,al difficulties and" the City Civil Courts Act could . l.°'be..yarnend"edl by redefining the jurisdiction of 'A feoi;1rt with reference to subject matter and its 'v.alu.__.'~ition fvis--a--Vis the jurisdiction of the civil judges T'(Sr,Dn.']w-presently managing the small causes courts. In Sarojamma-v-K.M. Venkatesh, (ILR 2004 Kar C "'4931] yet another learned single judge of this court affirmed the judgment and decree passed by court of Small Causes decreeing the suit filed for ejectment by ~t'm

352.

the landlord against the tenant after determination of tenancy, by holding that the court of small causes is competent to try such suit. Brief facts of the landlord of a. nonwresidential premises....,t:lf1eV C rental of which exceeded Rs. 590/ the tenancy as per section ll. of lT"Act 9623/99 before the City Civillldrudgye, Banéalorefg against the tenant for ejectmeiltjarrears.lo'f..ren't and damages at the rate of Rs.» 4000/a:.per'-- order dated 9/1/2003,_ 4.tthe }f:_f: M jj; }'J'trt1'ge relying on the decision' Ranflelsh P Seth's case [supral ordered'return'o_f. 91dlaint..:iorpresentation to proper court namely of"-Snilall Causes, Bangalore holding . that' suit isuelxclusively triable by Court of Small 1 the plaint was re--presented before the": Cc;'u'1't9l«:l"' of Small Causes, Bangalore and was fregtstered as S.C.No.161/2003. After trial, by judgment "decree dated 30/10/2000 the Court of Small "Causes decreed the suit and directed the defendant/tenant to Vacate and deliver vacant possession of the premises to the plaintiff/landlord. 33 Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree the defendant/tenant fiied Revision petition before this court. Before the learned single judge thejjteiiant contended that the Court of Small Cau_se"s' H jurisdiction to try said suit. In this regard=re1ijanVcewas"». it placed on the decisions in BV'qng:§1Eoi~el*._;nrii:ii':ig.__ publishing Co.Ltd. and Kﬂan.deitbdi~...i.Brdlther3:i* Co.Ltd. However the learnedle-:i_ngl_e jucli-g_ev'_byvvf%follo\2ving the decision in Ramesh. P_ case dismissed the petition on 16:/'9_/ judgment and decree igiaséed i3y'"ti1e;jco1ii$t""oi Small Causes holding that the Court'of.§1naii.:l(3auses had jurisdiction to try the-_.said 4lstiit.V.The"v.sa1'd order dismissing the revision . it = «petition was questioned by the tenant before the Hon'ble in Civil Appeai No.3378 / 2006. The Apex C't3urt___v\x'ithout adverting to the merits of the case, set .aside'=----:the order of the learned single judge and lkjlremanded the matter to this court for fresh disposal.

-"lWhile doing so the apex court had indicated that it was open for the learned single judge to refer the matter to a Division Bench. On such remand the Revision petition. .3?

was again listed before the learned single judge who in view of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, referred the matter to the Division Bench. The'iDiiv_isi_on Bench after hearing the counsels appearing parties as also the learned counsels""app_ear1:ng for"

parties in similar petitions, if 13 / 07/ 2007 which is reported 2tC'"-.'i:)"2A'V~[._i{.':.1.1f, fsmt. Sarojamma~Vs'_-_ *he_ld_i§that the Small Causes Court j.cogn1ﬁan_ce only of such suits which are filed;'seekifngfej§.¢jt1nesjft'* of tenants of the premiisems appllyiyes and not in respect of the occupy other premises to whichxthe"Act<does'- apply and whose tenancy has ., 'been tletelinfiinedfllolrfhas come to an end by efﬂux of time orf of the same. The Division Bench furthe'r'1a,e'ld that in respect of ejectment of the tenants ncf. thefpremises to which the KR Act does not apply, "'._frei'ifef would have to be sought for by filing an "fappropriate suit before the City Civil Court which alone can entertain such suits even if bare ejectment or ejectment and arrears of rent is sought. Referring to the 35 decision in the case of Rarnesh P Seth, the Division Bench observed that the said case was with regard to the tenant defined under section 3 (r) of therefore no court would have jurisdiction prayer for damages or mesne profits p_raylei°--.. would be redundant and the for ejectrnent and rent as<su--cVh lea.rne'd'l's:ingle keeping in view of the prov_isio_r1s_j_of Act has rightly heid that the 'qiiest1.on.l.jo,i ldamiages does not arise and the suitior ejectrnentl' and is Inaintainable regard to the decision in the x Case' ,_o1" A:.ijV'Bian:galore printing and publishing Co.5,'Ltd.. theDrivisionlzlldench observed that though the 'adopteldlllby the learned single judge is not .s«i'miAlar:'*t,o the-ir reasoning, the conclusion arrived at by the 1e.ar11%§dAs1ng1e judge that in respect of the premises not governed by KR Act, the jurisdiction to file suit is loefore civil court is the correct view. With regard to the "decision in the case of M/s Khandelwal, the Division Bench observed that the learned single judge though has rightly held that the suit for mesrie profits and Q' 3?:

damages would not be maintainable before court of small causes, the View of the learned single judgethat a suit for ejectment only would be rnaintainablembeforieg. the Court of Small Causes is not the correctl"-xiriexipasllthe V' said View has been taken by llearriedisiingleyygl only by referring to sub--article ©§£. Artigcllerlglvii considering the conjoint scolpeilof sublarticies [b) and

(c). As the Division'l3enchxlrecorded'vits opinion on the propositions formulated going in to the pleadings eacl1_of..tl"ie"petitions referred. all thosc§'lVlpetliti.ons'gto be placed before the 1earned""decision in the light of the opinion extpregssed on question of law relating to the of Small Causes to entertain suit Accordingly when some of the petitions were xpilaicedll before one of us (DVSKJ) learned counsels ugappearing for the land-- lords contended that there is a l fallacy in accepting the arguments canvassed before the Division Bench that clause [b) of Article 4 is one which should be understood as a provision conferring 2 37 jurisdiction on the court of small causes to entertain a suit for ejectment only in a situation where' payable and not in any other situation an interpretation is placed it virtu'a»lly reéduvcleslthe vsjcope V ' of the provision for maintaining an ejectIner1t*~SVuit such court to almost nil,"thereforeV..t1'ieylinterpretation"

placed by the Division...Bench"1'eqi1ires reconsideration.

18. On the otherhandhclliltp on behalf of the plajced by the division benchon: the correct Vi€W and the by the Division Bench is binding such reconsideration of the lawilaid down Division Bench is not warranted. a. the light of the rival submissions made at Single Bench in Abdul Wajid 82. Others-Vs Onkdrgippa & Others (ILR 2008 Kar.120) after referring 'totlie provisions of sections 3, 7 and 9 of CPC and by VA .. Vinoticing that the Court of Small Causes is necessarily a 'civil court' as such it is not excluded from the purview of the phrase 'civil court' as used in Sec.4l_ of KCFSV Act and that a suit for ejectment: has i:o be understood ./1 333' as a suit for recovery of possession where ownership of the plaintiff is not in dispute, the View taken the Division Bench and the interpretation of Article 4 that Court of Small Cause.s_f:"c.ann_1otS"

cognizance of suit for ejectrnenij, of te_na'nt._:inu of the premises to which the KR AAct"does_ andﬁ such a relief would have sought filing an appropriate suit onlj?..._b~efo--re Court which alone can entertain such:--suits:.,pevenVViihere ejectment or ejectment 4_Vandf}'arrears1.of rent' islwsought, requires a reloolelrecofisideiation..HVHowever having regard to the binding interpretation placed by the Divjisioil Single Bench and by placing irel'ianEc"e on the 'decisions of the Apex Court in (1) AIR (Lala Shri Bhagwan 82. Anr.--Vs- Ram fAntr.),{2) AIR 1990 SC 261 (Sundarjas nKan_Iz;aIal Bhathija-- Vs- The collector, Thane, ll'-.V_V1if-ﬂiarashtra) and {3} [2002] 1 SCC 1 (Pradip Chandra '' ---l'arija --Vs-Pramod Chandra Patnaik), the Single Bench directed the Registry to place the matters before the Hon'b]e Chief Ji.1stice for appropifiate orders to agﬁfj The iriterpretation. placed by the Division Bench in Sarojamma's case is a binding precedent therefore, the Single Bench could not have referred the mattlefntopp a larger bench as such, reference to the improper and is not valid. In this-.regardreliancef,vv'as A placed on the decision of Apex A' in 2 SCC 673.

Though a suit'tor.eje.ctmleiit_is'cognizable by Court of Small Causes as 4 of schedule, unless all "enumerated in clauses [a}, (b) and i_:(c} _ collectively and conjointly satisfied,pCourt.of'S;nall 'Causes cannot take cognizance of such. suit for ej ectinent.

' _Mornent'the lease of a premises to which KR Act is .iiot'iappli.ca_ble, comes to an end by the efﬂux of time or is determined by issuing notice as per the section 11 1 of A Act, the relationship of landlord and tenant eeases to exist and the occupation of the premises by the erstwhile tenant. becomes unauthorized and illegal as such he would be liable to pay only damages for use and occupation. and not the rent. In that event the 'mt:

bearing to the condition enumerated under clause (b) of Article 4». Therefore, suit referred to in sectionj~ﬁ1"lvV'of KCFSV Act has no reference to suit for the Court of Small Causes.

KSCC Act, was enacted4'in:l'l.964ptlljylllieeplijngl in; View the definition of tenantfound in of KRC Act and repeal of KRC la] to (c) of article 4 of scheduleA'tov:l'iSCCC Therefore, after the of 'Small Causes has no jurisdiction a suit for ejectment of to which KR Act is not applicable. learned counsel sought for up}-iolding lltheillavv laid down by the Division Bench in of 'Sarojairim4a'«sV case.

' VSri.H.J.Sanghvi, learned advocate, adopting the arginnents of Sri S Shekar Shetty, contended that if iu;n's.ettlirag the settled position in law would cause great hardship to the litigants on account of uncertainty and therefore reconsideration of the interpretation placed by the Division Bench in Sarojammads case is not warranted.

#3

23. Sri. P.D. Surana. learned advocate, who sought reconsideration of the _interpretation by the division bench in Sarojarnmas case. subnf1iLlted,_V as under:

The Single Bench in Abdul' Xvaji.-;1;si_vVl¢c'as'e °:ii_;_:1, riotl' 4' refer the issue to the F 111} Bench its Single Bench was of the 'view' thatthednterpretation' placed by DivisionVBench"in-.Sarcjamnaa*sA case needs reconsideration and laid down by the Apex Court; refeiitred Single Bench is justified_ 'ld:ire_c:tiungfylthe registry to place the papers before if justice for constituting appropriate for settling the law. As the reference 1l1ll«.._Bench for its opinion was made by the .DiV_ision"'_Be11;ch, the reference is valid in law. A after repeal of KRC Act there is no change in "ii" thielegal position as to the competence of Court of Small A ﬁlauses to take cognizance of suits for ejectment by land lord against tenant in terms of Article 4 of schedule to KSCC Act and the repeal of KRC Act has not in any way rendered clauses (a) to {C} ofArticie 4 redundant. 4:29» In respect of premises to which KR Act is applicable, possession of such premises can be recoverediby the land Lord from the tenant only in accordance provisions of said Act and the court corisdtutledi ll1v€l'C.lI"i= alone would have exclusive j=uris-dictiozil -to" deal.__ such proceedings. In that*re*spectl civil"

Court is expressly ousted. l\2l:erely'V.foecauseylAjrr:iBangalore city the Court of designated as the court under not exercise power as Act as such the opinjolnllo'fAl.t.lv5ie Sarojam1na's case that the of would have jurisdiction to take,cognli2:ance..*oflsuit for ejectment only if KR Act is 'l V. pap-plie'ab1"e..to sulclimpremises is contrary to law. Trrle_"_v»coii1petence of Court of Small Causes to take cognizaiice of suit for ejectrnent by the landlord against 2 nth-ea tenant, which is a category of suit carved out as an ""e;l>l:ception in Article 4 of schedule to KSCC Act, has to be 'decided only by looking into the language of said provision alone that too when the language of said provision is plain and uznambiguous and the said 'ft 5:95"

provision cannot be interpreted with the aid of any other enactment. None of the conditions enumerated in clauses (a) to (c) of Article 4 depend upoln';.Vthe application or non application of KR Act premises. Therefore the interpretation"'p»laeed~:by Division Bench on clause (13) condition would be satisfi-éld«--.onlyllif is erroneous and opposed t_of'the'well..S€iti_F?Clyy§3rincip1es of interpretation of * if A Articie 4 r'el.a'te__ tofliability to pay rent by the tenant nor it status of the tenant after the detern1inatio'11 tenancy, as such clause (b) cannot be «the liability of the tenant to pay rent. Clause .{bd}__Qf referable only to the quantum of rent in context of Secéil (2) of KCFSV Act for the purpose of "p*eo_unliary jurisdiction of the court and nothing else. Vlﬂqen the legislatures have consciously conferred jurisdiction on the Court of Small Causes to take cognizance of suit for ejectment subject to the conditions enumerated in cl.a.141ses (21) to (c) of Article 4, S':

4:" 6 no interpretation which takes away such jurisdiction and renders the provision redundant. can be placed, The interpretation now placed by the Article 4 with specific reference to resulted in completely taking A 9 C the Court of Small causyes-._from'._tlaking,»eoVgniaarl;cei ejectment suits and thereblyilvrenderingiilthellfgexception carved out in étich an interpretation is oppose.d_:t.o Cl C C In the _lf;)fllofHlcourt' occurring in section 3 it cannot be interpreted that Secﬁllllof only to suits before 'civil cougjrtl' and not before Court of Small Causes. Even of Section 8 (2) of KSCC Act makes it ,cl'e.a,r of Small Causes is also a 'Civil Court' i'orl"all"'-pulrposes as it is competent to take cognizance of all--._thell suits of civil nature except the nature of suit enumerated in the schedule to the Act and as per C wSection 10 of KSCC Act procedure followed by Court of Small Causes is as prescribed i11 CPC to the extent applicable. Therefore Sec. 4} (2) of KCFSV Act is 2': , ' $57' applicable to the suits for ejectment before Court of Small. Causes.

The interpretation placed by the that a suit for ejectment is nothing..b1.,it".Va"--l.suit recovery of possession of immo_Vabl.e property lthieirefore such a suit is not cognizabl-e_ by Court of'S'rria.llV Causeisliir is contrary to the exception:"oarv.ed Article 4 of schedule. In this has failed to notice that a suit against the tenant is lessee to put the lessor back'sin-to"'possle's.sion of the leased premises in terms Section and [q] of TP Act which is in thepgjriature of mere re~delivery of leased premises and in su_.lci1_V.su1t:'Atliie possessory right of the landlord is not nature of possession of leased premises by the after the period of lease coming to an end by efflux of time or on determination of tenancy would not be unauthorized nor illegal but on the other hand the status of such erstwhile tenant: has to be construed as a tenant at 'sufferan.ce' akin to 'i:respasser' having no ,7 " tsc'i":ed*u'le ~ _ 428 independent. right to continue in possession as held by the Apex Court in Raptakos Bret 81, Co.~K/'s$Gctﬂesh Property [ [I998]? SCC 184]. l

24. Sri.Nanda Gopal, learned for the petitioners, apart of Sri P.D. Surana, cont.ended"'thatleven alstlittior mesne profits is cognizable as, such suit is carxfediloiut 28 of the schedule" the contrary opinion is opposed to the very stattite, and' Bench has completely overlooked.' 'consider the effect of Article 28 of the ~. Anand Setti, learned advocate who was permyitted to argue as an intervenor, in addition to 2 V. billing the written submissions submitted as under:

Schedule to KSCC Act enumerates the nature of suits which are not cognizable by Court of Small Causes. As a corollary, all other suits are cognizable by _ ; ,« ,3.

\.

2;?

Court of Small Causes. Schedule to the KSCC Act has not excluded the suit for mesne profits cognizance of Court of Small Causes and o1:;he_r hand reading of Article 28 of schedule_.cle«Al?:1':ioilly"i~ndicates. that a suit for mesne profits Small Causes. A A it A C A A .

Expression ' recovery interest: such property' occurringAin..:firtilcle2t:_>ziiVCl.oigéhedule of KSCC Act does not include and this is clear by _i'z28.__lliar1lnoniously with the fact that {there it is'vn_o'«.eX'press.exclusion of suit for mesne profits in the schedule;---- A _§plThcere in article 4 of schedule to indicate C to 'A«1'.'I1]c4(A.%2'I"'~._'lZl'1El1Z 'mesne profit' is included in the H finterest in such property'. This is further fortified "from the fact that though Article 31 of it Frovincial Small Causes Courts Act, on the lines of Altwhich the KSCC Act was enacted, expressly excepted suit for recovery of mesne profit. from the jurisdiction of Court of Small Causes, under Article 28 of KSCC Act suit for recovery of mesne profit has been carved out 50 an exception. Therefore, the Court of Small Causes is competent to take cognizance of suit for recovery of mesne profit.

ANALYSIS Re- Validity of Reference;

26. In Tribhovandas Purshottzzirfittiase..Th4£1'!4jIct:tr;V:Jé.

Ratilal Motilal Patel,(1E§6$) ICC Court has observed thus;

" Precedents"Which_e§;nun'cié1tet rules of law form the. foundationv"Qf__sdministtration of It has been held Single Judge of a High Courts bound to accept as correLt_:V of courts of coordinate jgiris(1icti'ori'------s::1d of Division Benches and of Benches of his Court and of this A reason of the ruie which makes a p're.ce<ient binding lies in the desire to secure " uiiiformity and certainty in the law."

":27. Again, in P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of "'"'Karnataka, (2002) 4 sec 578, the Apex Court has observed thus;

5:51 "The wellmsettled principle of precedents which has crystallised into a rule of law is that a Bench of lesser strength is bound the view expressed by a Bench of strength and cannot take a View in is or in conflict therefrom."

28. In the light of these contended that the Singl_e*..Benc'h while' Abdul Wajid's case was bou.nd:fby"the t/iew._exVpEressed by the Division Bench 4'inc'Sarc}ja.mrna1sd"case as such it could not takeila._different::w'ievv;*therefore the reference As the Single Bench in Abdul Wajid's case'; after l1~eferl~1ng to the submissions on both a,eXpressed"th'ev view that the interpretation placed 'Vt;ylthVé'»-Ditfision Bench in Sarojarnrnas case deserves a i'e.;~_loo_k ~ari'r:iAl'reconsideration. Conscious of the binding ppnatuleof the View expressed by the Division Bench, the =._VSin.gle Bench directed the Registry to place the papers .---before the Hon'b1e Chief Justice for constituting an appropriate bench for settling the law. Thus the Single Bench. did not refer the matters to the Full Bench. ,,

- 5 561 When the papers were placed before the I-Ion'ble Chief Justice, the matters were directed to be posted_.-before another Division Bench which after hearing . Was- view that the matter requires to be hea'rd bga"

Bench and accordingly that Dixf'isio'n «l3e..nchl S matters to the Full Bench. Thus reference Full Bench was by the Divisions Bench the Single Bench. The 'A~p_e>§ decisions has laid down the by a bench of lesser sti_'engt.1i wherii is of'-xtlieiview that the View expressled' an%€f;therg:Cowor'dinate Bench or a Bench of larger strength re:qi_ii1'es" a remlook or reconsideration. _ _ 30l"In 'Lc1Vly:1A&-3_l1r*£"lSVBhagwan v. Shri Ram Chand (Ari: 1965 so i7'e7;«'1t is observed thus S = Avisl'_jhardly necessary to emphasise that consjiderations of judicial propriety and H decorurn require that if a lea.rned Single Judge hearing a matter is inclined to take the View that the earlier decisions of the High Court, whether of a Division Bench or of a Single Judge, need to be reconsidered, he should not cnibark upon that enquiry 53 sitting as a Single Judge, but should refer the matter to a Division Bench. or, in _a_' proper case, place the relevant papers the Chief Justice to enable him to a larger Bench to examine the questiponil is the proper and tradition'al'Wa,y to such matters and it is on principles of judicial ll"decorurrn'l' propriety."

31. In Tribhovrtinias Thakkar's case (19es)1ecR 455..ge.upra),llA.it been observed thus;

with the observations madeiiin cited at the Bar, Raju, "J, easv way out. He observed that the jpudgnientv of the Full Bench of the _ Court had "no existence in in the absence of a provision in the

-Cionsltitution and the Charter Act of 1861, a it Judge of a High Court had no power to refer a case to a Full Bench for determination of a question of law arising before him, and a decision given on a reference "had no existence in law". The learned Judge also thought that if a Judge or a Division Bench of a court makes a reference on a question of 554 law to a Ful} Bench for decision, it would in effect be assuming the jurisdiction which Vested by the Charter of the Court Chief justice of the High Court.

observing the learned Judge cor12..plete.lyJ misconceived the nature of"'a~refe1fen_.ce"'rnadefk by a Judge or a Bench a Bench. When it appears to Vayhsingle or_:§ a Division Bench thatztfhere are Iconﬂilciiting decisions of t}ie_sam'e' th'er'eV are decisions of other in India which a__re_ strongiyf:persiiasivﬁifand take a Vi€W ﬁiffeérent .frorf:_ j[J1'1€4yi€\iU"JWiIi'Ch prevails in .hi--s '--_Cou'rtv,-.of that a question of law' of "Jim-portanVce.. arises in the trial of a case,, the the Bench passes an Order thath.'-the papers be placed before the ;_Chief Just-ie--e' of the High Court with a

--,req'u.est___to form a Special or Full Bench to ""neL_ar dispose of the case or the questions v__r'aise*d in the case. For making such a " _req'uest to the Chief Justice, no authority of the Constitution or of the Charter of the High Court is needed, and by making such a request a Judge does not assume to himself the powers of the Chief Justice. A Single Judge does not by himself refer the matter to the Full Bench: he only requests the Chief 55 Justice to constitute a Full Bench for hearing the matter. Such 21 Bench is constituted by the Chief Justice. The Justice of a Court may as a rule, deference to the Views expressedfljy,this colleague, refer the case; ._t4hat""»' mean, however, that authority is in the order of lr'eference.7}\gsin would be impossible toiihold la'-

delivered by a,f.<'ul1 of. a High. Court after due considera_tilon3§of t1*iej:p>oin_ts before it is liabletto be... 'l.éi'slvp"i=r1'el_eVant by Judges onjtlievground of some "th.e"lconstitution of the l

32.'-.1fn«. Sun;la§jas~._y_Km1yalal Bhatija v. Collector, Thane, (1939) 3* slccﬁége, it is observed thus; V l It would be difficult for us to the judgment of the High Court.

A 7.i_ri}ust remember that pursuit of the law, it , hovyever glamorous it is, has its own llimitation on the bench. In a rnu1ti--judge court, the judges are bound by precedents and procedure. They could use their discretion only when there is no declared principle to be found, no rule and no r'?

5; as authority. The judicial decorum and legal propriety demand that where a learned Single Judge or a Division Bench does agree with the decision of a bench ordinate jurisdiction, the matter 'V' referred to a larger bench, jltjis a.s'u'l3~'.i(:rsion'.j of judicial process not procedure"

33. In State of Assn., (1998) 5 sec 637. _obser1fedi_'tllus:

"3. Irrthe the High Courtl--.,hasj' _l1ow.e\/:'er, gonellinto" the question ajfof Judicial Officers fwho. as respondents in the said matter of inter se s'eniorityv...lhad'earlier been considered by a of the same High Court in V he Durgadas Purkayastha V. Horfble High Court in respect of the same jj which judgment has become final. In the 533%:539impugned judgment the Division Bench of the High Court has taken a View different from that taken in the earlier judgment in the case of Durgadas Purkayastha.

4. We are of the view that the Division Bench of the High Court which has delivered the impugned judgment being a coordineatieie Bench could not have taken a view from that taken by the earlier Divisio-.-51:

of the High Court in thecase of Purkayastha. If the latter Be.niefl1'4'vvaIited'*wt:0__ take a View different:t_hanii.--h.at taken. the'; earlier Bench, the course» would have been the nlatterxto a larger Bench" V

34. In the vlightu'0i°~ thev by the Apex Court"in' d.e'c'i'sions, and the procedure adopted byVthe'S:in_gle_:CVBench as well as by the Division Bench, therevwas impropriety in the reference to the B,eI1C'h_nor th'e"refe1'ence was invalid. Therefore the 'Vconten'ti_oi1lu.rgfed in this regard is rejected and it is held that the reference to the Full Bench is proger and valid. «Re. Correctness of the interpretation by Division Bench in Sarojamma's case;

35. As noticed earlier, before the advent of KSCC Act, there were three separate statutes governing the jurisdiction and powers of Court of Small Causes in A /:38 different parts of the State. As could be seen from the 'Statements of Objects and Reasons' attached to the Act, as there were three separate statutes, necessitylwlasllfelt by the State legislature to have a uniform Small Cause Courts in the whlole'"Sta-te..; C modelled on the Provincial 1887 and taking into consildeiration ti'ie_recVomlit;1endationl made by the Claapterllll "of the Act deals with preliminaries Chapter II comprised with Constitution of Courts':':Cai1sesil"WChapter III comprised of Sections 8 already extracted, deals with jurisdiction t_:lof...vCot1rt"v of Small Causes. Chapter IV .. «. Acorrl:ip1*5ise'("l..pof 10 to 19 deals with practice and finally Chapter V comprised of Sections 2i).._to deals with supplementary Provisions. Though Sub~sec.[2) of Sec. 8 of KSCC Act C fempowers a Court of Small Causes to take cognizance of " «ail suits of civil nature the value of which. does not exceed one lakh rupees in Bangalore city and twenty five thousand rupees out side Bangalore city, Sub-sec. 553 {1} of Sec.8 directs that a Court of Small Causes shall not take cognizance of the suits specified in the Schedule as, the category of suits mention.edl:'-i1:j'~V_the Schedule are excepted from cognizance Small Causes. As per Sec.9, ..Cioi.1rts have exclusive jurisdiction tothe cognizable by it and jurisdiction of."a1l_ other C such suits cognizable byx.(3oupr.ts-~.._of Sinall Causes, is specifically barred. in all the suits cognizable l'C"auses and in all proceedingsrv5.arilslingflout of suits the procedure to be follovved is prescribed by Code of Civil procedure" subjectlll'-tovlthe savings prescribed therein 5o_Ru1el"i'1br CPC] and in KSCC Act. As per orders passed by the Courts of small Causes' under Sec.35A and Sec.95 of CPC are lappeal-able to the extent provided by Sec. 104 of CPC to A' High Court if the order relates to Court of Small " "Causes in Bangalore City and to the District Court in other places. Under Sec. 18, High Court is vested with the power of Revision and for the purpose of satisfying 60 itself that a decree or order passed by a Court of Small Causes was according to law, the High Court may call for the case and pass such orders as it thinks fit._ per Sec. 20, the Courts of Small Causes are sub}-ect:'_to:"'the administrative control of the District Court"

Superintendence of the High Court. ' to the Act enumerates the natu_re--_Vof excepted from the jurisdictiopriiof court' of f$r1§;a1lVVcauses.V There are as many iiithe Schedule which takes away almost all of civil nature frorripithle jurisdliction of Court of Small Causes, 'leaving' of suits.

J _{ A . 'llh"us_:reading of the provisions of the Act make the Courts constituted under the Act are S' ~pi'efereritial'~courts having limited jurisdiction and such established to provide expeditious trial and i'd'isposal of certain types of cases in the shortest "possible time.

38. As per Article 4 of Schedule, a suit for possession of immovable property or for the recovery of interest in such. property is not cognizable by a court of eff small causes. However an exception is carved out in this Article. As per this exception a suit for €j€C.tI'I1€11'[.e.Sl_,lbj€Ct to the conditions enumerated in clauses ('all-V cognizable by Courts of small causes. V' enumerated in clauses [a] to (c}'are';'* ._ [i] the property shouldl'--haare beenlletl'underllag lease or pe1'mlii;te'dV_to have been o_Vc'c'up'ied a Written instrurrlent or orally.' ' [ii] The off smalil_xT'C«?1L1ses should be competent to teal§'e' cognfi_'za11_ce of a suit for the i'ent:.o'1""th.:e p1'ope1't.y_. ye "

[iii] lisslue arising for the .. :e1;<leci'§;filon"i:i"suchlﬂeuits is whether the lease .has"-._been._lcletermined by efﬂux of time " _ lim_ite:d-thereby or has been determined by a noticeA'in'aacCordance with the law for the "tir1_1eVbei.:f1g in force in respect of such lease, be or permission to occupy has been v, l"'w_ithd1'awn.

noticed earlier till the repeal of KRC Act and ad.VeI1__t* Act on 31/ 12 /2001, there was consistant AAoppini(>.n:' that in respect of the premises to which part V A' ifof -KRC Act was not applicable by Virtue of section 31, " Wland the lease of which had come to an end by efﬂux of time limited therein or the tenancy had been determined 'E

63. by issuing notice as provided by section 1 1 1 of T13 Act, a suit for ejectment was cognizabie by court of small causes subject to its pecuniary jurisdiction ni'en'tio'ned in Sec. 8 (2) of KSCC Act, which was being--- as per See. 41 {2} read with~'Se--c..A5O'_; ll though there was some controvlersiylas filed for ejectrnent and also use' and occupation of the'ﬂprexnlilsievs; determination of the tenancy was of small CELLISBS.

4:0. Indi?;VS.,_C§irid.fiarf'i*s--.' P.V.Shetti, ILR 1934 Kar. 1115 a'»D4ivii.sionlE;en.cl}this court, in view of the fact Sec. 3 VvK'RCl:.Act exempted the application of Part "wt: "control of eviction of tenants and landlords" only" to a non residential vvhose monthly rent exceeded Rs.500/-- and 2 since "all other provisions of said Act including the "lgdeiinition of term 'tenant' which included a tenant holding over after determinat.ion of tenancy, were applicable even to the category of premises as mentioned in Sec. 31, held that notwithstanding the 63 termination of tenancy, the person in possession of such premises would be a tenant. as such, he woulpd be liable to pay only agreed rent and not dan1aige'$Vl:f(.f;~ use and occupation. In the light of this there opinion that in respect of non _res,identi'al_ "p1'vemises whose monthly rent exceededV".llRls.5OOV,";- determination of tenancy inlKac'corVdanC'e a suit for ejectment and for _:fent~;.__'»subj_ect to pecuniary jurisdiction, was cognizable byla small Causes.

41. regard to the cornpetence'l'ofVC_oL1rt«.oi'~Sma_ll Causes to take cognizance of a ejectfne114t"'a,r4ose only after the repeal of Kl'-{C Act; and theladyentviof KR Act especially in the light of of the term 'tenant' occurring in Sec.3 (n) non application of the entire Act to the host" oipplcategory of premises specified in clauses (a) to '(h}.pfVsub. Sec.[3) ofSec.2 of the Act.

42. In SarojamIna's case the division bench 'formulated the following three propositions for its consideration;

.9 64 {1} Can Small Causes Court take cognizance of only such suits which are filed seeking ejectment of tenants of the premises to which the Karnataka Rent Act applies-Vg:avnd not in respect of tenants who §_'o'c'c1'_1py" the _ premises whose tenancy C" been ' determined or come; toan e-ndisuch 2 case the remedy is [onlythje "civil 'cou-rt?' A f [2] Can small causes colu_rtW--takegc--ogni2an.ce<ofa suits ﬁled seekirig. '%jectment a_r1d._Vlrerit even' in respect of premises to which Karnata.liaV_ Rent * riot" 'applicable, subject to «Athlete prayer for mesne profits, damages compensation pf:{ovided.lthe"lwaluéivﬁiori of" the same being H {within the f3ecunli,ary' jui'isdiction? ~13] lll:sii'I1all--,causes*'Cfourt take cognizance of Z Vls*L;-its'filedglseeizing ejectment, rent, damages etc., even in respect of the _4 A premises which Karnataka Rent Act, is 'V riotapplicable, provided the valuation of the _ sarne-- ----- -Wbeing within the pecuniary .4 ' «jurisdiction?

._'l'h_e. I)'ivision:'Bench answered the above propositions as ur__1der;_ . i " _ 131] The Small Causes Court can take cognizance only of such suits which are filed seeking ejectment of tenants of the premises to which KR Act applies and not in respect of the tenants/ persons who occupy other premises to which the Act does not apply and whose tenancy has been determined or has come to an end either by efflux of time or by withdrawal of the same.

G5 (2) &{3] in respect of the ejectrnent of the tenants from the premises to which the KR Act does not apply, relief would haveyto be sought for by filing an approprviwat'e_4ll~suit before City Civil Court which...«~.a,lo.neljclan entertain such suits even if brare ve_jiectmei1ti'v. or ejectment and arrears of 'soughtf -« .. b Re: the correctness of answerplto J

43. The answer to the _first'Vpart.lof N01 is on the premise tenant of to which KR Act is applicable:,_ to be a tenant even after efflux" of tinie after termination of the t:Venan'c'yl,5»by& thempermission to occupy has been \Xzith'draWn'aiidllevhenlduring the period of the such eveiitupality anduntil ejectment or eviction is made such .pe"rsoii:' yvould remain to be a tenant and the payable for the occupation of the premisesyeither during the subsistence of the lease or or subsequent to determination or efﬂux, would be 'rent' the same cannot be called in any other 'ﬂlnornenclature and therefore the same would satisfy sub article (b). as such insofar as such a tenant is concerned the Court of Small Causes would have 4 66' jurisdiction to pass an order for ejectrnent even though a suit for possession of immovable property or Vinterest in such property is excepted.

44. A cursory reading of propositiollylfwo.'hand answer above indicates theft' formulating the first partgof the"'propositio-1;.' arid", finding answer to the sarrie'g._lljdthe French has completely overlool§_e_d'-- the in respect of premises to which isp'applicabl.e".only the 'Court' constituted§--_iV1n:iler has jurisdiction to passiv:an_ordergrecove1fy.of possession of the premises that tooanlpon proving one or more grounds en4i_irr1erated"'therein:. Section 27 of the KR. Act to the . 'extent relevant for our purposes reads as under:

Protection of tenants against eviction: 'V (l]Notwitl1standing anything to the " 'e.on§.rary contained in any other law or contract, . "no order or decree for recovery of possession of .. _..any premises shall be made by the Court, District judge or High Court in favour of landlord against the tenant save as provided in sub--sec.{2). {2].The Court may, on an application made to it in the prescribed manner, make an order for 57 recovery of possession of the premises on one or more of the following grounds only. ~'

(a) to [r] XXXXXXXX Sec.3. ( c). 'Court' means, [i] in respect of the areapcpomprisedvvviithin = _ the limits of City of Basngaliore, l-the CVou_rtv"~= of small Causes; A. " V'

(ii) in such other area as tki'e"':'3tate Government, may, 1n'consu_l'tat1on with the High Court,, by notification specify, the Court .of C.iV'i1""J.udge"['Senior Division] havi.n"g_ jur:?;scliuC:ti'on= over such area: and T * [iii] ~in"~respect a.re'a°s..other'than those referfredfto in'.sub-clau.ses'[i]" and [ii], the Ciou r_t"= of "-..Civi1:~.. _ Jtidge {J unior division] __ p_l1aV~'i.Vr1"g.§ §urisd_ie.ti'o1i over such area.

46. toad Special Act and in the light the_%.<no11--obsta_nte clause found in subsection (1). the .' all other courts other than the 'Court' H 'cAo.nstitut'ed"§u'nder the said Act. to make an order for recovery of possession of such premises to which said " 'At;-téAisvﬂapplicable, stand excluded. Therefore no court than the court specified in clause (c) of Section~3 has jurisdiction to pass an order for recovery of possession of the premises to which this Act applies. Of course as per sub~c1a.use (i) & [iii] of clause ( c] of A

-' 58 section 3 in respect of the area comprised within the limits of City of Bangalore the Court of Small Causes and in respect of other areas Court of Civil Judge division] having territorial jurisdiction overssuch:

are designated as 'court' under the'Ac1;.1_HoWeverthese". courts being persor1a~designeta, vvheiijever ti"ieyveXer<cisel"-- powers under the said Act they discharge as special courts. The :Court Bangalore and the Court of in other places while Act does not function slas'eC:ourt'7'oVf Small Causes exercising the power under courts as the case may be.

This _,is furlther clear in Sections 24 and 26 of sé¢';"""24 of KSCC Act provides for .a Judge or Additional Judge of a Court of CE-3.rna1__l' to be also a judge in any other Civil 'court to be a Magistrate of any class. As per Sec. 26 ._la_lCou'lrt invested with the jurisdiction of a court of small Causes with respect to the exercise of that jurisdiction and the same Court with respect to the exercise of its jurisdiction in suits of a civii naturc which are not

- '2 55% cognizable by a Court of small Causes, shall for the purposes of KSCC Act and the Code of Civil Procedure, be deemed to be different. Thus, though Small Causes in Bangalore functions as -iC'ou~rtl"'S-uiider"I4_ KR Act, While discharging sL1clj;'functions Aetli they function as Special Courts small Causes under before the Division Bench wasingot'"urhethelr"the Court of Small Causes are com-petefntVvtomtaliejcognizance of a proceeding i1é:iti'ated._ £015 recoifewrymflof possession of premises l:i{l?,.::';~\_ctlliswapplicable. The question before'-the was whether Courts of Small Caus_es can_pltals:e c'ogf1izance of suits for ejectment in C V. - preis.pee'tA of premises to which KR Act is not applicable. it of Karnataka civil Rules of Practice made by.._th€._"St.alte in exercise of powers conferred by Sec.122 A.of"CPC..which is applicable to all Civil Courts in the sets out the description of the proceedings. As it "per sub-rule (1) a suit instituted in any court subordinate to the High court, other than a suit cognizable by a court of small Causes, shall be 70 designated as "Original Suit" and indicated by the abbreviation "O.S.". As per sub rule {2} a suit cognizabie by a court of small Causes sha'll"'»c.be designated a 'Small Cause Suit" and indicai;edl..'b'y:

abbreviation "S.C.". As per sub ~..

proceedings other than suits and E:s2_:ec1:1tiori be classified according to't'h.e natureof':tlfie.._,_subject_lK matter and be designated as-.r11e.1jitionedl_therein and indicated by the abbreviationi;'noted:gtl'1,ere in. As per Clause (g) of sub rul"e"'{éf.:]:: Control Cases shoulirivwbees Thus the original proceedings V recovery of possession of premises Act is applicable before the . l.°'~co"rn.petent'i'..Court""under the said Act are not 'Suits'. Th-erefore'; opinion of the }Division Bench that Court ___of Causes can take cognizance only of such. suits which are filed seeking ejectment of l'~tena'nts of the premises to which KR Act applies ll runs contrary to the provisions of said Act as such it does not lay down correct law. In respect of the premises to which KR Act is applicable, only the if 'Court' speciﬁed under clause {c ) of Section 3 alone is competent to make order for recovery ofcsuch premises on the landlord proving any on.e"'4.bi.-«dsifnrore grounds enumerated therein.

48. While formulating 3 proposition No.1, the Division Ebeyh the View that all suits respect of premises to which irrespective of the Value ofthe suits for the purpose cognizable by Proposi.tion Nos. 2 & 3 relate to the jurisdiction of her Small Causes to take cognizance V'0f_xsuit's for ejectment with prayer for ,'1*e_coveAry. .of«-arrears of rent and /or mesne profits in ~res.pect:'o't7.prernises to which KR Act does not apply.

After extracting the provisions of Sec.8, 9 and Article 4 of Schedule to KSCC Act, the Division Bench, the purpose of finding answers to these propositions has considered the questions as to what does words 'Possession' and 'ﬁljectment' indicates; as to whether recovery of mesnc profits or damages for use and "J lfét occupation of the premises after termination of tenancy or determination of lease by efﬂux of time would amount to recovery of an interest in the immovable as to What is the nature of possession llleasedv' premises by the erstwhile tenanlt' « determination and as to by the erstwhile tenant ,':.?.-leltlleigrnlilinationl for the continued ofppthepremises/property would be 'rent'V.

50. 'lThe"'o;Vpl:?.ivisi._oI1i Bierich ':aft.e_r.l noticing that the words a'n.d"~'.ejeetment' are not defined under any of ltheitstatutles are under consideration and though. all theliexternal aids urged, more particularly 12 of CPC, Article 67 of the Limitation ~.!A3l'f(.:--tl'andff-thevprovisions of KCFSV Act, use the word 'polssession'. and the kind of decrees that are 2 npfeitmissible, has observed that no distinction as to "whether the terms 'possession' and ' ejectment' would 'mean different or as to whether they are interchangeable words is not clearly indicated. Thereafter, the division bench referring to the intention #8 of the legislatures in enacting the Small Causes Courts Act, in keeping out almost all category of suits relpating to immovable property and certain other call for full dress trial out of the purview._::off_Co'urt small Causes, but only permitting"s.u'its~:

which do not admit of con_trove'rsies asp,c'a.te'gori2ied'r iria clauses {a} to {c) of Article'V'"4:'to_be V'ente1't:ain'ed by the Court of Small Ca'u€-est. and suit for ejectment in effect is for recovery.' possvessuiio-ri of immovable property, ul.tirr§a~te1y"opined that' t'h'e"word ' 'possession' includes alAl.rV5typeisl'ofpossession and therefore the said term is all encofizipassirig. and includes the ejectment, as such, the 'word 'possession' is generic in nature and the word 5'Aejectrnent' islits species but they are however not inasmuch as the word 'ejectment' could be~..use'd in respect of persons whose initial entry ..was {awful and continues to be lawful or has become "'._luI1lawful by legal fiction whereas the word possession if V' "could be used in respect of both who have entered lawfully or otherwise.

=i'é£-

51. By referring to the decision of a Single Bench of this court _in Guruviah~Vs~KrishnaVenamma, reported in 1983 (1) KLJ es and the meaning of the.y..e§ip:r*es.sion 'interest in the u_se and enjoyment of landl"-..occfurring--in Black's Law dictionary, the when the enjoyment of th«e_'1andganvC1 that tag person may derive is an 'interest' invthe' 'property, the rent, damages, p.rofi.ts",airolnipensation etc., in respect of such landriwhich :.th'e"v,owri--er is entitled to receive Inore ;:3'p_ai'.ti'cuiar1y_Vwhen""'such property is occupied so1irieoiie" eiseulhas to be construed as 'interest in the in§movaU]e*'property'.

52. lreiianwce on the decision of the Hon'b1e inmthe case of M.C. Chockalingam and §l.9'vvM'anickaVasagain and others, AIR 1974 SC 104, and. the decision in M/s.Raptakos Brett & Co.,-vs~ frianesh property, AIR 1998 SC 3085, wherein it has "sheen held that wrongful possession is not distinct from "unlawful occupation and an erstwhile tenant continues in possession because he cannot be physically thrown out without. due process of law and the status of an .7 C' ﬁx.

75"

erstwhile tenant has to be treated as a tenant at sufferance akin to a trespasser having no independent right to continue in possession, the DiViSi0f}M..B€lIlCl'ii. has observed that "the settled position of law case of non--~statutory tenant févhoise' tena-ney" 'ha_s"bee'n determined continues to be in possession''.; ers'itW'hileV.p tenant and would not fall thel'defi1'e1iVtioﬁn: oi tenant but would only be protecteld eyiction but his possession afterpvydeterihninoation"iizotild be wrongful possession independen't'------'right to continue Whereas tinder Rent Act has a right to continue the Act".

1' 53, Placingreliance on the decision in Giridhafs «case wherein another Division Bench of this that the tenants under the Rent Act WHO-uld.V:contin'ue to be the tenants and inrespect of such person even after determination the amount payable be rent and not mesne profits, the Division Bench as a converse has held that "in the case of an erstwhile tenant who is not a statutory tenant in View of the premises not being governed by the Rent Act, the '#5 consideration payable for such unlawful, wrongful and juridical possession as tenant at sufferance is gnesne proﬁts, damages or compensation and not rent-'*_'." »

54. In the light of the above Bench held thus in para 32;

as x x x for a su'it__. forlV"ejlectmeant- it Inaintainable as perl"'A:r'ti.cle small causes court, sub--a:1'tic1e. [a} lplresoribes the pre--requisite. 4.l"'lsfub+»artiele (C) prescribes the-~ V-scjiope _p=.of which indica?_tes}_the s:un1irnary°n_a'tu're--V»and it is sub- key to deciding ihé all the three are read 'sﬁ'%ice the words "would be it c'on1petent.vvv_to'intake cognizance of a suit for theWproperty" as contained in sub-

would assume all importance, particularly the Words 'would be' which it .. denotes that as on the date of presenting the suit to the Small Causes Court, the court should be competent to take cognizance of a suit for rent. The term 'rent' can be used only in respect of a tenant and not otherwise. Therefore on that particular day, the -Small Causes Court would not have jurisdiction to enteriiain the slut in View of '3'?

sub~article [b], unless he is a tenant of the premises to which the Rent Act is applicable which continues his status as t.enant. X Uitimately the Division Bench para 33: ' " C" c C ' "Hence, the resultantiieifeet legislature while exce1i:5"tin.:?'::'--A.Aii' possession has ca11:I_ed__. out-..eL§cctrneirit."v.aVnd.i3 qualified the same by out from the excepted iiiiterestiiiiiini the property and ejectment and then the Small Causes Cioiirt. tenant who {theiiconsideration of rent] and [c] ensures the suinrnarifi the proceedings which is C if further e_ornpli:nented by Sections 43 and 45 C Rent Therefore the irresistible can only be that in respect of a lessee who is not protected under H "the'"lQent Act ejectrnent suit would not be Viniaintainable before the Court of small Causes since the Court would not have the jurisdiction to take cognizance of such a suit and could be instituted only before the Civil Court even if bare ejectment is sought"

Re. Opinion of the Division Bench as to the meaning of the terms 'Possession' and 'Ejectment'. *7?

55. Though as per Article 4 of the to KSCC Act, a suit for recovery of immovable property or any inte_rest_--"th'erein'» not". cognizable by a Court of Srn.all;'_"Caulses';~ ejectrnent carved out als_"-an exception --'suc'nX categories of su_its forrecoyeigfvoil"poss.essi.on_clr interest in the immovable 'made cognizable by a Court -_. to conditions enumeratecl' _ pecuniary limits as Act. In the light of this.

as the.DiVision'Benichlwag: required only to consider the questionl""w1f1'eth'erl*Cotirts of Small Causes can take ' V' cognizance of alsuitl for ejectment against non~statutory 4"res_pect of premises to which KR Act is not applicable; our opinion, it was not necessary for the pl)ivizsion Bench to examine as to whether the terms '--..V"'pn.ssession' and 'ejectmenf would mean different and .---fwhether they are interchangeable words, more particularly in the light of the plain language of Article 4 of the schedule.

We W'

56. As observed by the Division Bench no doubt the terms 'possession' and 'ejectmerat' are not defined under any of the statutes. Nevertheless in the conte4>:tV_:'Q;fi~t_he jurisdiction of Court of Small Causes to take of suits for ejectment in terrr.1s....of .our'"' opinion, the term 'ejectment' wo'a.ildf_rriean'~diffe1'enti"frVorn the term 'possession' aridﬁthey are ~1nter'e_hangeableV.d' Words. We say so for the folltevrit:-glreasonls:-_ 5'7. Reading of 1rial'<ed.i'V_'it'_'.-clear that the Legislaturesftheniselves, th'e"'vpu.i9pose of investing jurisdictiondvvlin--~.__:theW_dC-Qurt.' of Small Causes, have indicatedrtliat Va s'uit.-- lfordéipossession does not include a suitforrejectrnent, as such, in the context of jurisdiction __SInall Causes, the term 'ejectrnent' is 'di.ffe'rentA.".froi;n the term 'possession'. This intention on the part. the Legislatures may also be gathered from Athe-..ppreVious statutes which were repealed under this Act. As is clear from the Statements of Objects and Reasons attached to KSCC Act, this Act. was modeled on the lines of The Provincial Small Causes Courts Act 1887. Article 4 of Schedule to 1887 Act excepted from 5?

90 the cognizance of Court of Small Causes, a suit for possession of immovable property or for the recovery of an interest in such property. The said carved out an exception similar to the one .I_n.ade Article 4 of KSCC Act. Thus aiisulit' «for, ej.;ectn1ent":also, was not cognizable by Court o4fn.S'm_all 1887 Act. Nevertheless, KSCC_V_'Act éint fort' ejectment is made Court of Small Causes, of it-"tie conditions enumerated fa] the pecuniary limitsvllasm 8(2). This exception appears to haVe'll)eeri__::ﬁiodeled on the lines of Mysore Act VIII oi;l4l9:v1i-yxrhitxhtlivlvas in operation in Mysore area. hereinvlllalbtove, as per section 4 of Mysore Act, only" ,A'.i'-specified in Schedule I therein were cog.nizable«:"'"hy Courts of Small Causes and no suit in .w,hich"°relief was claimed in respect of immovable "'.pr"operty was cognizable by a Court of Small Causes. '""i~lowever as per Exception introduced through the amendment Act; VI of 1928 to this Section, a suit in ejectment based on leases of immovable property in ii» 31' writing, other than agricultural ieases, was not a suit in respect of immovable property within the meaning. of this Section. Consequent amendment made I to that Act as per clause 22, permitte--d..A4_fa~.V ». Small Cause to take cognizance of-Atstiitsetin "ejectme:atA based on leases of immovable fp~roperty'V:"oth.eprW than agricultural leases, which is on these lines under Article éiof l:Schedule Act, suits for ejectment appears to" out as an exception for -recovery of possession of immoxfabllel' interest therein. From this it is clearvthatl of jurisdiction of Court of Sma11.Causees._,v ais'uit"-for ejectment is not necessarily on l"par"*vvit~;h* a"suit formrecovery of possession of immovable *-pro-pea'tyj«vund'er.general law. Under general law, recovery of possession of Jimmovablle property is referable to recovery of specific immovable property as provided under sections 5 and 6 T Specific Relief Act 1963. Under law, three distinct actions can be brought for the recovery of specific immovable property namely (1) a suit based on title. (2) if <3-3 cognizable by Court of Small Causes, as per Clause (a) of Article 4, the property/ premises must have been let under a lease or permitted to be occupied by a'~x2vritt~en instrument or orally. As per Clause [C], * have been determined by efflux of» time.' tliereby All or must have been determined by notilce:ir1_accord_anc'e, with law or the permission -.t_o=.occu"py must been"

Withdrawn. No doubt even piln"tli_:c suit forlejectvment the purpose is recovery of property.

Nevertheless foifAejec:t«rr1en'tl' be equated to a suit for posse»ssio{n 'immovable property in common parlance. * Theft p'rovisions of Limitation Act and KCFSV Act lllalsol inliiicalt"e«..ythat a suit for ejectment is distinct and lltlii'fe_1fen't«l"fr_oIn""the suit for recovery of possession of A . im1n'ovable"'property based on title or possessory title. if'ﬂ«.VP1'ovi.sions of Limitation Act prescribes different period

-- limitation for different kinds of suits and proceedings. "Article 64 of Limitation Act: 1963, prescribes period of limitation inrespect of suits for possession of immovable property based on previous possession and not on title, .; A,» ::f 84» while Article 65 prescribes period of limitation inrespect of suits for possession of immovable property or any interest therein based on title. Article 66 presci<ibes period of limitation inrespect of suits for possessiori ' immovable property when plaintiffhas entlitleil. it to possession by reason of any l"for:i"eiturel'*oyr »brea'c.:h~_.of~._ condition. Article 67 presciibesp pe.rio_d'o.,fl in l respect of suits by a landlord"to 'i_fe:~clo*..I_er possession from a tenant.

different 'andprolceedings for determination of the value Jmatter of such suits for the purpolsen of jurisdiction and payment of court fee. with a suit for possession of immovable Section 41 [2] deals with a suit for

--' recoverylyof immovable property from a tenant including tenant holding over after termination of tenancy. Limitation Act and KCFSV Act have also indicated that suits for possession of immovable property are different from suits by landlord for recovery of possession from tenant.

3' 'R 151 is cognizabie by court of Small Causes while the other is excepted from the purview of Small Causes Court, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not excluded to grant the relief which is cognizable by small It is a well accepted theory that Civil Courts general jurisdiction. Therefore the juristiicltioirof_Ci:vil'V. Court to take cognizance of a e'j»ec'trrierit:'fal'ii.i_ig within its pecuniary jurisdiction is not b'arrc_d«,v...,,E~Ven suit only for ejectment prayer fo1*.niesf1e profits, the Value of the subject exceeds the pecuniary Clo'u'r'tlof Small Causes, would lie only before Jurisdiction of a Court to take _vcogni::aVncef-of suit or proceedings dependant ' on. "several factors' such as Territorial Jurisdiction, lhivrjisdiction and also the nature of the reliefs as :Sec.8 of KCFSV Act which deals with Valuation l'~_lo'f rnuitifarious suit, directs that in any suit in which " -"separate and distinct reliefs based on the same cause of action are sought, the plaint shall be chargeable with a fee on the a fgregate value of the reliefs. As per Rule 3 101 of Order 11 of C.P.C. a plaintiff has an option to unite in the same suit several causes of action against the same defendant, or the same defendants jointly. This'joption. is also available to several plaintiffs havirié' action in which they are jointly"intere's1;e_dl the f same defendant/s. As per Vsub--ru_le'-[V2] of several Causes of action are_ixnited,'----the. cjiiriepdicltion of V the Court as regartis_A shali depend on the amount or Value of the at the date of inst;itnting the Explanation to Sec. thellpijrpose of the said Section, a suitkfor ximmovable property and for mesne profits sh.all"be"deemed to be based on the same causeifof action. lllll V 11 Rule 2(3) of C.P.C. requires that a person. entitled to more than one relief in respect of the Asamevciause of action has to sue for all reliefs, but if he except with the leave of the Court, to sue for all it _..reliefs, he shall not afterwards sue for any relief so omitted. The object of this rule is to prevent multiplicity of suits Therefore, viewed from any angle, there is 10-3 no substance in the second premise on which the Division Bench proceeded to hold that Court of small Causes cannot take cognizance of a'j's!_iii:_."for ejectxnent with or without prayer profits / damages.

79. In the light of the aboy'e_ opilnionylvcf is left to be considered isll"t'xz:\?h»etherl"theyinterpretationV placed by the DiVisionV,_Be1'ileh Clause of Article 4 is justified.

three}conditions»,::enurnerated in Clauses (a) to (C) of Article have Collectively and eonjointly satisfied ford: purpos.e.._vof Small Causes Court taking ' ;clog;n_izai'1r§ge. suit for ejectment as provided under ll .8ll;:_ .l(43lause [a] prescribes the prerequisite that the A iplrogaerty must have been let under a lease or permitted to be occupied either by a written instrument or orally, thereby it insists that there should have been jural relationship of landlord and tenant betweer1 the parties 9?

103- to the suit any time prior to the institution of the suit. Clause {b) directs that the Court of small Causes is competent to take cognizance of a suit the property. Clause (c) lays down the being summary and the onlyilslu:bstantial-l.:issue"ltVhat arises for consideration being Whether gt.h,e:'iease has-, been determined by efﬂu"x:.lll'of tinietolr has been determined by a notic_e~,.. or."thelVperniission to occupy has been Withdrawn.

82. ,at'l"p-ara 31 by posing a question toywhether the lessee / tenant Whose term tofu'. tenancy' been determined and who corggjtiriues to .. be in possession of the premises even 'thloughl.nljotventitled to in law, can be sought to be ~ey'i(:ted:llby__ approaching small Causes Court keeping in view. Se-ctilons 8,9, and also Article 4 of the Act, after A'1'eferring to the principles laid down in 133.8. Giridhar's (supra), and as a converse proposition holding that 'in the case of an erstwhile tenant who is not a statutory tenant in View of the premises not being governed by the Rent Act, the consideration payable for such unlawful 105 and juridical possession as tenant at sufferance is mesne proﬁts, damages or compensation and notfrent', went on to hold that as the considerations~.p%iid-«--¢,or payable by a non~statutory tenant for occupation of the premises/'prOpe:r'i:y_ '--.after h termination / determination is not rent' and term 'rent' can be used only.c'ii1,resper;t of tenant and V not otherwise, on tl'ie.,_datel'lof' s1l,l1'i't,"the Small Causes Court would to entertain the suit in y"ielw_;(j'f st1b~a1-"ticle vw1_1__1_1.iess he is a tenant of the Rent Act is applicable which'contilnuesl':_iiis'<..sta.tus as tenant and as on that date. _since'n_o re.ntA"woi,ild be payable in respect of the pr'o.perty,the of small causes would not be lcompete.n"1:Vt'o_t~ake cognizance of a suit for 'rent', of the pro_perty,:Vl'therefore clause [b] of Article 4 would not be .ASvE.Lt1.S.l.lVC:'--Cl. In this View of the matter the division Bench ill'.-tonlcluded that Court of Small Causes has no V. .._.jurisdiction to take cognizance of even a bare suit for ejectment also.

106

83. As noticed supra almost all kinds of suits of civil nature involving immovable property are taken out of the purview of Small Causes Court leaving onlyyyvel-lyt_VfeW categories of suits of civil nature involving".inirnovable_ property are made cognizable bymSmall."(ﬁaa:ses"=Co.urtVs§ A suit for ejeetment by 1a~I'1(j\lOI~(3:}",'a.g?,:i'i1'l~ﬁt erstvvhillelitenant after determination of lease isypone of the of su'1t.S' eognizable by Court of "'-.Hov.;ever, the interpretation plaeed'"bly--.the on clause [b) of Article4_:4,__ hasleveii bare suit for ejeetrrientnot_eogn'izab.le by of Small Causes.

_ Solmey the eardinal rules of construction of syta't1it:elfo_r_l'aprovision of a statute are:

, primary rule of construction is that the the legislature must be found in the words the legislature itself. [See AIR 1957' SC 907}. l'TheCCi11.tention of legislature must be found by reading Wthe statute as a Whole. (See. [1985] 3 SCC 1013; AIR 1992 SC 1]. The courts strongly lean against a Construction which reduces the statute a futility. (See. 107 AIR 1961 SC IIO7; AIR 1990 SC l23;}. __.__"While considering the meaning of a provision in the whole statute, the previous state of statutes in pari materia etc.:,*"arey Courts to avoid interpretation7 devoid of any meaning or '"l"9h2

369).

85. Keeping mind let us consider iiriterpretation placed by the [bl of Article 4 is in accor'clanvc.e _ .' i 1" -I...

exception in Article 4 of the Schedule, the ieﬁgislatures have vested jurisdiction in the .Co,u1tsA o.f~Srnall Causes to take cognizance of suits for e.k'ec.t.ni'ent'.jbyzhlandlord against erstwhile non--statutory tenhantlgifter determination/termination of lease. Any :j..ini:eijpre'tation which takes away the jurisdiction of such preferential courts to take cognizance of a suit falling "viii/ithin its jurisdiction should be avoided. The object of enacting KSCC Act is to provide speedy remedy by adopting summary procedure. More particularly in :1 iv: ' 10$-

relation to a suit. for ejectment, in terms of clause ( c) of Article 4, only substantial issue for considerationyvill be whether the lease has been determined by efﬂtiii or by a notice. Such a benign intentiorz rendered meaningless by narrowly'inte1:pre.tin'g_thefterm C 'rent' occurring in Clause V(b} ot'Arlti_c.1e 'rent' paid by an erstwhile l"tenant~--.in-cocciripation of V premises to which K¥{..Act _.is"lapp;1icabAle. Ina case of this nature court is purposive interpretation'tQ:y1'pres_enze~.'theVjurisdiction of the Court. 87'. ' .Cou'rt.s_Vtof Causes are also essentially 'Civil Very much clear in sub-

sec{.[2)s..of Act. According to sub--sec.(2) 'the exception specified in the Schedule and to _1;l'flJ;'€> of any other law, all suits of a civil natugpvalue of which does not exceed one lakh rupees "iii-..fthell area falling within Bangalore City Corporation rupees twenty five thousands in other areas, shall 'be cognizable by a Court of Small Causes. Sec. 10 makes Code of Civil Procedure applicable to the proceedings before Court of Small Causes to the extent, 133 provided under the Code. The Rules of Practice applicable to the Civil Courts as per Karnatalia Civil Rules of Practice framed by the State in powers conferred by Sec.122 of applicable to courts of small phrases 'Court of Small Causes'l§*..'Civil CoplLi_1'tl," and; Civil Court' have been lVdefin.ed Cindth-e respective enactments, it is fordthe of institutional distribution of' suits of civil nature amongst .co.urts"----subject to place or area:'tVivitnei.nv5._ causes of action for the institution of Thus, the Court of Small Causes is llessentially alcivil court, remains a civil court 'C C. it7-is not as though it is one to be excluded from the 1 of Cthexphrase 'Civil Court'.

88;' "I'~E"ie jurisdiction of the Court of Small Causes to it talie cognizance of a suit for ejectment has to be decided with reference to the provisions of Sections 8,9, l C "and Article 4 of the Schedule to KSCC Act. In Article 4, expressions such as 'landlord' and 'tenant' have not been used. Therefore, while finding out the context in 3.10 which the term 'rent' occurring in clause (b) of Article 4, has been used therein, calling in aid the definition of terms 'landlord' or 'tenant' occurring in KR Act"-i.'s;_not warrented. As rightly contended by learned Counsel, none of the conditions enumerated in Clauses (a) to [c] of Articlel'.élll".depenvdlA"L1poln;ll'*the.VV application or non application"i.of of KRVV Act to the subject already supra, if the KR Act is possession of such premiseslean be recove1°eVd*~.bn.1.y_iaS provided in the said the premises to which KR Act.is..no[. cl question of resorting to a. suit for pejectnilent eithei? before Court of small Causes or ' pe'fors..,.r.W/ﬁivilp courtsllldepending upon the Value of the ls.t_1bject"~rn'atier~~ of suit, would arise. 89;' There is great force in the contention of Sri PD. Surana. that the expression 'rent' occurring in clause [b) not relate to liability to pay rent by the tenant, nor it relates to the status of the tenant after the determination of lease/tenancy as such clause (b) cannot be attached to the liability of the tenant to pay 1]}.

rent and the said clause is referable only to the quantum of rent in the context of Sec. 41(2) of. Act for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction loft and nothing else.

90. As Clause (a) of ll4l"sets.

prerequisites for a suit fo1'..t,ge35ctment; «Clause (cl prescribes the substantial' " that" arises for consideration in such limiting factor under Clauj5e"««g:.[b] is regard to pecuniary jurisdiction o:l"Cou"rt nothing else. out the method of calculating the courtﬂfee suits between landlord and per.....su"b-sec.[2] in a suit for recovery of property from a tenant including a tenant after termination of tenancy, fee shall be computed on the premium if any and on the rent payable for the year next before the date of presenting ___ii;he plaint. As per the Explanation to sub-sec.[2) rent:

includes also damages for use and occupation payable by a tenant holding over.

ll;

92. There is no substance in the argument of Sri Shekar shetty, that Sec.4l {2} of KCFSV Act'-is not applicable to any proceedings before the Court Causes since the said section is applicabllclonjly. the suits filed before Civil Court.:|At'the._ first" as noticed above Court of Small 'causes pare:'also';Civilp Courts. Secondly as per tern} 'Court' occurring in clause<_."'~!ii} Act is applicable to all kind.s_:1ofV Tribunal or the Authority yjurlisdilction"u--n'der any special or affecting the rights of parties; V' Thirdlyi 'Civil Courts' is used only in sub.5ec.[l]" and'Vnot."inl"sub~sec.[2] as such sub~sec.[2} is Iylotll restricted tolWClivil Courts only in its application.

vsi;~b:=sec.[2] of Sec.41 is applicable to suit of such nature as is referred therein filed before the Court ..of___Srnall Causes also. As per Sec.5O [1] of this Act, if lllfspecific provision with regard to the value of a suit for A if "the purpose of determining the jurisdiction of courts, is not otherwise made, the value of the suit for the purpose of fee shall be the value for the purpose of w»&.

1113 jurisdiction also. in relation to a suit for eiectrnent by landlord against the erstwhile non~statutory tenant, the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court has to the basis of Sec. 41 [2] read with Sec.50 of

93. Having examined the :=.schern:e i_vv'elll'7as purpose and object of llA_ct. Vantll' provisions, we are of the placed in terms of clause pt of Small Causes would be competent of a suit for the rent of as in relation to the of the Court of small Causeslinpjlthelcontext:ofnSec.41 {2} of KCFSV Act. What is "I_{ellev.ant florgthe purpose of deciding the pecuniary the court in terms of Sec.4i [2] of KCFSV payable for the year next before the date of .l4pre"sen'tlation of plaint. Law does not insist the laridlord to file the suit soon after the expiry of the of lease or expiry of fifteen days from the date of service of notice of termination of lessee, as, Article 67 of Limitation Act prescribes a period of twelve years from the date of determination of tenancy for a landlord 11:, to ﬁle a suit to recover possession from the tenant. Even if a suit for ejectrnent is filed after lapsebf one year of determination/ termination of lease for the purpose of finding out the pecuniary the court what is relevant is '_rent'*payableu year prior to the presentationA'o_f"'the consideration paid or payable by é;nferstw;m1e non- statutory tenant after <7_ieterfnin»at'ion/termination of lease is only mesne Ap.r.ofit.s'0r and no rent is payable Eﬁipllaiilation to Sec.41 (2), the terinl "1'ent' _in,tl1e said section is made inclusive of damages for occupation payable by a tenant holding Therefore, the term 'rent' occuring in {b')..of of the Schedule, is referable only ltod payable for the year next before the presentation of the plaint in terms of Sec.41 (2) of :AC'[, for the purpose of finding out the pecuniary it 'gju-risdiction of the Court of Small Causes and nothing i " ~ "else.

94. In Jugalkishore Saraf -vs~ Raw Cotton Co. Ltd. AIR 1955 SC 3'76, the Apex Court has ruled thus:

1:5' "The cardinal rule of construction of statutes is to read the statute literally, that is by giving to the words used by legislature their ordinary, natural.».lland:f grammatical meaning. If, however,"~lsuch.V.:all reading leads to absurdity; and susceptible of another r'nea:_r1in'g may adopt the same. if alternative constructiorr. is court must adopt thei"ord_inlary. rulleof literal interpretation."it S S 'C it it casel'on'lor grammatical meaning of the termifprlentlloclcuriihig in Clause (b) is adopted as is donielgby they "Div_i__s_ion Bench, it would take away the ' the Courts of Small Causes to take suit for ejectment which the legislature vestedlinl it by carving out such suit as an exception Article 4. Such interpretation defeats the legislative intent and it leads to absurdity. The said word, as noticed above, is susceptible of another meaning which, if adopted. would preserve the limited jurisdiction of Court. of Small Causes to take cognizance W' 116' of a suit for ejectment. Therefore we deem it proper to adopt the alternative meaning to subserve the legislative intent in carving out the suit for ejectment..'_as;' an exception under Article 4 and to jurisdiction of the Courts cognizance of such suits. . C C C A C

96. Yet another factorlVlto..ll.vhe.utalte'11l._lnoteﬂfor saving the limited jurisdicticizrof Causes is that these Courts hoth in~-- elsewhere are presided of the rank of Ciitil if the suit: for ejectrnent is not cognizable lémall Causes, such suits in Baﬁigaleore cil'ty,.l_vl\:2\l7loul:d lie before City Civil Court while in depending upon the value of the subject H would lie before the Court of Civil Dn.) or the Court of Civiljudge (Sr. Dn.) as case may be. There is already docket explosion in Civil Courts at Bangalore as a result there is long lpendency of cases. If the suits for ejectment falling within the pecuniary jurisdiction of Courts of Small Causes are also taken out of the jurisdiction of such 11'?

courts by adopting literal or grammatical meaning of the word 'rent', even a suit which could be disposedpef by a summary procedure that too the substantial":is'sﬁe.lfor consideration being the one stated in Clau;§e_:'© 4, will have to wait for its turn;

the decrees being amenable for lchallengelplintlap}3ea.l'and..p this procedure if adopted, defela1:l_the?vei»ypurposeV of KSCC Act which to "for speedy remedy.

we are of opinion that interpretation which the" jurisdiction of the Court of Small Causestoltake cognizance of a suit for ejectment .A 'i.ou:t"~-pas an exception in Article 4 has to be

98.' .V"£~'*1i1erefore, we hold that Courts of small ccausesi have jurisdiction to take cognizance of not l'g_lo'1i}jlr a bare suit for Ejectment but also a suit for it " -"Ejectment with a prayer for recovery of mesne proﬁts or damages, in respect of the premises to which KR Act is not applicable. In View of this, we 1153 hold that the interpretation placed by the Division Bench in Sarojamma's case, on Clause (13) of Article 4 of Schedule to KSCC Act does not lay d_oxavfn_:lithe correct law.

99. There is one other aspect whichreqiipires be clarified. In couple of decisions has beAen'vobser'v.ed~.VV that though the generalE:pi'Jnc1ple._l' is the' jurisdiction of the Court '.2'-;;hal1-Itjp.§:"=deterrnineld by the averment in the plaint, Act makes a departure this 'eigeiielraﬂl=.__principle and the jurisdicti_onxofvthe.Court___Qf Small Causes to try the suit for ejeeternente is "nfiad:e-,iVeedependent on the contentions raieed in the statement and at the will of the in the written statement if the defendant relationship of landlord and tenant, dei'1ies"VtVhextitle or take any other plea which gives rise to 2 issue other than the one mentioned in clause [ c) of "Article 4, the Small Causes Court has to return the plaint for presentation before the Civil Court for adjudication. No doubt, as per clause {C} of Article 4 the only substantial issue to be considered is whether the 11'-'8 lease has been determined by efflux of time or has been determined by a notice, or the permission to occupyhas been withdrawn. If the right of a plaintiff claimed by him in a court of small Causes dlepetid the proof or disproof of title to:v'irrV1i}f1oVable' other title in the light of the contentions defendant in his written statieinient, certainly court

8.CU.I1g under SEC. O}f'V(i'(A3r"Vvretu}~n of plaint for presentationV_to --C<ourt.._'--l~lowever, mere denial ofjural "of .la:ndl'ordV:and tenant by the defendant stateftient though the lease is evidenced by itself cannot be a ground to hold. -that of Stnall Causes has no jurisdiction. In"e\"ient, aswamn incidental question the Court has Whether the property had been let under lease or .Epermitted to be occupied by a Written inushrurnent or orally as stated in Clause [a] and for that C pose the plaintiff has to be afforded opportunity to V V' place evidence.

100. The next aspect to be Considered is the effect of this interpretation on the decrees already passed by the .r'

g)' 120 Civil Courts pursuant to the interpretation made by the Division Bench in Sarojamma's case, and which have already become final, and also on proceedings for ejectment before the courts' Courts of Small Causes.

101. As noticed supra.>it is oérilvafter_ti9ie..deCcisijonr Bangalore Printing 8: Sowcar T Premnathe xdevcided on 22/10/2003}. the jurisdiction of Court of a suit for ejectinlelntili Conflicting views were expressed in 'few and ultimately matter was referred"t0__Vthe Division Bench in Sarojarnmas case. the decision of Division Bench, the plaint 15311 for ejectrnent which were pending before . of Small Causes were returned and represented beforevﬂthe Civil Courts. Several Revision Petitions filed hiaefore this Court under Sec.18 questioning the decree "Hfor ejectment passed by the Courts of Small Causes were allowed and the matters were remanded to the Courts of'Sr31all Causes for ordering return of plaint for ?

-.2 2?"?

--, 121 presentation before proper Court. After the decision in Sarojamrnas case suits for ejectment irrespective of value of the subject matter of the suit, have beencﬁled before Civil Court. Many of such suits been disposed of by the Civil Courts.

might have become final or might As We have held that the.»i11terpret.ation Bench does not lay down. correct law,la11.dl_slince We have held that the Courts-«. have jurisdiction to take cognizance of-Vsutitfforgectinenvt' vvith or without prayerlltor orhlcilamages in respect of the premises' to is not applicable subject to the. pecuniary 'limits, it is necessary for us to indicate

- the effect.._ of interpretation on the above the light of the principle that the act of Court should prejudice no man ["Actus curiae neminem gravabit')

102. However conscious we are, exercising htllljlurisdiction under section 7 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, on a reference made by the division Bench and for opining on the correctness or otherwise /3 1212.

of the View expressed by the division Bench of this court in SAROJAMJI/IA's case {supra}, we neverthelesseldejem it proper, justified, in fact, warranted to developments subsequent to themview the division Bench in SAROJAMML/~lp's1'ctase :ui_ii,ftl*1:e matter of migration of pending mlattpersu of small causes which were othelrv.ris'e._tenable..beibre those courts in terms of indicated above, but to the civil courts that, in fact, there was no needlalsi courts of small causes do have situations where the suits otherwisellllare Inaintainlable before the courts of small 9aué;es;ii iridependelntly under the provisions of the ll Causes Courts Act, by exercise of jur*i.sdiction' of the High Court under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Article 227 of the "~Constitution of India, we are constrained to issue "consequential directions that in all such pending suits before civil courts which were either transferred to that court or in which plairits were represented to the civil i 123 court as a sequel to the Judgment of the division Bench of this court in SAROJAMMA's case [supra] and also such of those suits which have been institut_ed_"fbe'fore the civil courts after the Judgment of the in SAROJAMM/is case [st1pra}._bi'_it .::SL1VdiT.&SVVb -- otherwise should have been befo,re~ the"

of small causes, should a11f*necessar'i}yyj'be'"geither re?' transferred or transferredyzas'Athedtiase n1ay"be, to the court of small causes' andsL1\c'i'if.,suits should be continued the causes, from the stage'iat--VWi1.i.eh penhdidng before the civil courts. 10'3,'We are "'const-rained to issue this direction as Weare.quite'conscious that it is not as though the civil coui't_v.iisy.de'i:..uded of its jurisdiction for entertaining the ~Suits "'fo"r_v..'_r'ec'oVery of possession conforming to the of a suit for ejectment, just because this iiinited" category of suits for recovery of possession, unarnely suits for ejectments are suits which are to be it "tried by the srnaii causes courts subject to pecuniary jurisdiction, as trial of small causes suits being a suit involving sumrnary procedure and being a faciiity 134 extended to the litigants under the Karnataka Small Causes Courts Act and such a facility shouldﬁngot be denied or deprived to them as courts endeavour to see that there should not or proceedings and litigation shcsyuld:...clojrrli'e» expeditiously as possible.

104. It is also necessllﬁ1l§';--«4{Qf ,/go. ciaflfyr one another aspect namely, that having regard to purpose of enacting the KSCC class of civil courts known small causes' which are nevertheless civil "courts. but with a limited jurisdiction anpdilalso relieved from the rigors of procedure as __ under the Code of Civil Procedure, ll pai=ticular;l--y,"yi:nl providing for trial of suits in a summary manner! a suit which is triable before a small causes court and could result in a decree either for eviction in ejectment suit or for any other purpose including lwrlecovery of money, if should have been tried by a regular civil court and which court otherwise also has the jurisdiction to try all disputes of civil nature, it 115 notwithstanding the provisions of sections 8 and 9 of the KSCC Act, we are of the definite view that.-'--a_ suit which could have been otherwise requiredgtgtol before a small causes court but had been regular civil court and had culminated. in' a:.JL1dgmen«t and decree, such a decreegfollowingda ful1gc.ou:'r'se trliiaiv the regular civil court cannot» be and"'s--hould not be characterized as adecree:witho_ut"jurisdiction for the purpose of eXamining_th.e or otherwise of the decreef the question of j uristiictilonf . _ 31:';

are boenlstrained to opine so, being conscious of ' the vagaries to which litigants have been 'particularly, in the matter of selection of ~fo'i*L1In'lforl-_instituting suits for ejectment, as to whether it before a small causes court or a regular V' Aciv-il court and such question having been not answered in an uniform or conclusive manner by the courts in in recent times and the frequency with which Judicial opinions have changed. should not act to the detriment of the bonafide relief seeking litigant. ,1; 12.6

106. We hope this clarification of the legal position will take care of the otherwise harassed and exalsnerated litigant and with the hope that the set.tle'nient@ issue now, will result in the expediigions all t such pending matters.

Per D V SHYIENDRA

107. I had the tlfi~rtji,1gh the draft of the opinion Sri Justice K N w'as"'prepared on the lines of the all three of us had particilpaute--d,l of hearing learned counsel, pres,entingll"thVe"different View points to assist us for V' questions before the full Bench.

I am in full agreement with the concl1..,1sions.l indicated by my learned Brother Sri Justice Keshavanarayana and in fact, I have also contlributed to the opinion when it was finalized, nevertheless, I am constrained to add a few more sentences of my own for the purpose of a little clarity with regard to the statutory provisions and to make F. :

\>._ I 'SJ 12?' clear the view that I hold about the manner of understanding the statutory provisions and also for the purpose of brevity and to the benefit of suchvvyvofllthose readers who may not have the time or the through in full the elaboratemand prepared by my learned and es't4eeme.cl colleagtie Justice K N Keshavanarayana.

109. I am of «for interpreting and understanding Karnataka Small Cause\g.LC-our'itsl u to find out the juriséiictionn -small causes, it is only the provisions' of which has to be looked into and therefore the question of the jurisdiction of the srtnalljévllc-auses courts Act to the provisions of the Act, 1999 is a basic fallacy which has resulted. 1'11"; the view expressed by the division Bench of it this court in SAROJAMMA's ease [supra].

110. It incidentally happens that under the provisions of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, in chapter-

VI of the Act providing for regulation of eviction of a tenant by a landlord. the court to wliich a landlord may nag' :.«$_<l/' --

petition for recovery of possession of a premises in the occupation of a tenant on any one of the enuinerated grounds as provided in section 27[2] of Rent Act, 1999 and as defined in Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, being a in respect of area comprisedpwithinllthe Bangalore, is one regulatingepilthe plres.entatiVon of an eviction petition undef: this identifying the forum for preS€ntatiCn~~v..5f: tilt is incidental that the the Tribunal so identified Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 A of Bangalore.

Ii 1. Therelfore, iwhile functioning as a court under of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, the 'court of causes is a designated Tribunal and exercises its jurisdiction in terms of the provisions of if th'e---._Karnataka Rent. Act, 1999 and this jurisdiction of * of small causes as a special Tribunal under the Wfuiarnataka Rent Act, 1999 should not be confused with the jurisdiction which the court of small causes has independently under the provisions of the KSCC Act. 1'13

112. The court of small causes is aiso a court, conferred with jurisdiction to try disputes of civilpnature but with a limited jurisdiction, in the sense3mv'.V*itli:.ic:i'1u.the limits of pecuniary jurisdiction and within the limits oi".:a V' speciﬁed nature of suits apart from"th_os.e its purview in terms of section of -- the Actprlis 'a-, court created for the purpose of" .co'nvenience and expediency as it bec:omes_"'obvio»usyon a perusal of the provisions of the Act re_l'a.t_ing_l its vjufivsdiction, that the court of small}je.ai.i.s:es try only suits of simple nature, where'acomplications are minimal and where disputesyprcgarvding. title are not involved and such suitsare also tried in an expedient manner and attains .- V. hymalvvoidance of an appeal provision. the exclusion of the types of suits from x the purview of the court of small causes is to be iolundlllin the schedule to the KSCC Act in terms of 'section 8 of the KSCC Act, here again, there are exceptions to such exclusions, in the sense that. even amongst such suits which are excepted from the cognisance of court of small causes, a few varieties of J /"Q:

130

such suits are nevertheless brought back within the jurisdiction of the court of small causes subject to certain conditions being fulﬁlled.

114. One such illustration is ifourid terms of clause--4 in the sche»dulee~t:3 which while generally excl?-ides a suit for off' immovable property or for 0l?..lI1:'[E:}»1.'~AAeSﬂtlf§ in such property from the purview; it small causes, nevertheless, asuhit -ii-jectment suit, it is Within court of small causes, the issue of determination of rightstopf such an ejectment suit is neve§rthe.less within the purview of the court of V even when suits for recovery of possession to be kept out of the purview of otlllsmall causes, as such suits may inevitably l2.,ailllfolvevltiuestions of title. In such suits, where title is ' issue, the relationship as lessor and lessee is not an dispute, but the only issue is as to whether a lessee has ceased to have any rights under the lease due to happening of one or the other events enumerated in ' 2% 132,

116. For the same reason, I am of the view that the provisions of the Karnataka Court fee Suits Valuation Act, 1958 are also not one that _c'a'ri control interpretation or the understan.lding'--l.:::ofp provisions of ciause-[4] of the schedule rapt'.

Even here, the meaning to'be given to Vsuiirfciaiiyse lb] of clause~--4 of the schedule and to the word 'rent' and use o'f_zt.i1e this sub-clause is only in the. conte;:;tv...of lithe pecuniary jurisdiction. of c~olurti-of smfjall causes and is not so question of the nature of paymerit to be made by a tenant holdmgp ovue"1',.:lAtov.ihisl" landlord, for use and occupation perioldllof lease/authorization and such not to be characterized as rent, is to be "'cha1__"ac-telrized as 'compensation/damages'. The use ;."ofVrpthe"vvord 'rent' in this sub-clause is only for the e._l'pluIipose of arriving at the valuation of the suit for l "ejectment before the court of small causes and no more significance or importance needs to be attached to the word 'rent' in this sub-clause. But. for this elucidation, I ea;/1"

.7 :33 am in full agreement with the conclusion as opined by my learned colleague Justice K N Keshavanara;y'§.3i§f:y4 CONCLUSION S:--

1] The opinion of the Division Small Causes can take cognizance lonlyi"Voi3jsu.chfsuitsf' which are filed seeking ej'ectin_ent 'of of the premises to which contrary to the provisions of said as" not lay down correct law. Ir1'~respect"of:1the-preinisesi' to which KR Act is applicable'; under clause (c) of Sectionli3 cprnpetent to make order for recovei-§Q;:':j5of on the landlord proving any one or morc:'j'grou.Vnds"'enumerated therein. 2]v..«3l_ "co1fi1;e:»<t of jurisdiction of Small Causes ,'Co_yu1'i:,_C' suit for recovery of possession of immovable I propei*t,y'w.r,ioeAs~not include a suit for ejectment as such, a suitlllforvejeptrnent is distinct and different from suit for recovery of possession of immovable property or for it it " 3 recovery of any interest in such immovable property. In the context of jurisdiction of Court of Small Causes to take cognizance of a suit for ejectrnent, recovery of mesne proﬁts would not amount to either recovery of an interest in the immovable property or _ law.

134 determination or enforcement of any other right or interest in the immovable property, and the Court of Small Causes is competent to consider p'raye,r__for'mesnue profits against non--statutory te~n:anVt., " " q ' termination/determination of___.le,ase to -.itsV pecuniary jurisdiction. The contraryiview.' e'Xpres's,eda;_by the Division Bench in this regardbdoes,,lr1ot"laylfdlowng correct law.

4) Courts of small .:,]'l1ri;_3¢liction to take cognizance of riot onlyﬂa' for«w,ll';<Zljlectment but also a suit for recovery of mesne profits or pecuniary limits, in respect of" to" which KR Act is not applicable.. V TVhe':_i:interpr.et~ation placed by the Division Bench iniﬁyarojainmalscase, on Clause [b) of Article 4 of Schedule to Act does not lay down the correct 5]'~.. Theiisuits for ejectment with or without prayer for rent,"rr1Aesne profits or damages, pending before the Civil Courts, either upon re--present.ation of plaints pursuant to decision in Sarojammefs case or presented afresh ll "'"after Sarojamma's case, the value of the subject matter of which is Within the pecuniary limits of the Courts of Small Causes, shall be transferred to the Court of small Causes, which on receipt of such records shall proceed 135' from the stage at which they were pending before Civil Court and dispose them of in accordance with In the light of the above and sir1.C€hW€' considered the petitions referred merits, and as we have vonaly iIi'te1l'preted"lV'd1lre'_ Registry is directed to place' all Revision petitions before the hai/ingsldlfoaster for disposal on merits in the llgl'i'C.:'.£_l1€ deelafiedlhereinabove.

RS/KGR/AN fm.

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court