Karnataka High Court
Smt. Sarojamma vs K.M. Venkatesh on 16 September, 2004
Equivalent citations: ILR2004KAR4931, 2005 A I H C 274, 2004 AIR - KANT. H. C. R. 3453
Author: H.G. Ramesh
Bench: H.G. Ramesh
ORDER Ramesh, J.
1. This revision petition by the defendant/tenant in the suit in S.C. No. 161/2003 is directed against the judgment and decree dtd.30.10.2003 passed by the Court of Small Causes, Bangalore directing the petitioner to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the suit premises to the respondent/landlord within three months.
2. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties, perused the impugned judgment and the record of the Trial Court.
3. The relevant facts leading to filing of this Revision Petition are as follows;
The respondent/plaintiff had leased the suit premises to the petitioner/defendant on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,600/- for a period of two years and one month as per Ex.P1-the lease deed dated 10.3.1997. Accordingly, the lease got determined by efflux of time on 10.4.99. A notice of termination of lease dated 12.8.99 was also issued as per Ex.P2. Thereafter, the respondent/plaintiff filed a suit in O.S. No. 9263/99 before the City Civil Court, Bangalore for possession of the suit property and for damages. The City Civil Court, in view of the judgment of this Court in RAMESH P. SETH v. KRISHNAMURTHY, ILR 2002 KAR 565 ordered for return of the plaint by its order dated 9.1.2003 for presentation to the Court of Small Causes, Bangalore. On such presentation of the plaint to the Court of Small Causes, the suit came to be renumbered as S.C. No. 161/2003. The petitioner/defendant resisted the suit interalia on the ground that the suit was not maintainable in view of the provisions of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999. The plaintiff got examined himself as PW1 and produced Exs.P1. to P8. The defendant examined her husband/GPA Holder as DW1. The trial Court formulated the following points for determination:
"1) Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff is maintainable?
2) Whether the plaintiff is the owner of the schedule premises and the defendant was the tenant, under the plaintiff on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,600-00?
3) Whether the termination of the tenancy is proper?
4) Whether the court fee paid is proper?
5) What order?"
It answered all the points in the affirmative and decreed the suit for possession but declined to consider the claim for damages for want of jurisdiction.
4. The sole contention urged by Sri Pradeep Naik learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Court of Small Causes had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit filed for possession and damages. His contention is that the suit as brought was triable only by the Regular Civil Court and not by the Court of Small Causes. As stated above, the plaint was originally presented before the Regular Civil Court in the year 1999 but it ordered the plaint to be presented before the Court of Small Causes in view of the judgment of this Court in Ramesh P. Seth's case referred to above. I may also add that this contention re jurisdiction was not urged before the trial Court i.e., the Court of Small Causes. Be that as it may. It is relevant to state here itself that the Trial Court had declined to consider the relief of damages on the ground that it had no jurisdiction to consider the same but has only granted the decree for possession. Learned Counsel for the petitioner in support of his submission that the Court of Small Causes had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, has relied on the judgments of this Court in BANGALORE PRINTING AND PUBLISHING Co. LTD. v. SOUKAR T. PREMNATH, , KHANDELWAL BROTHERS CO. LTD. v. G.S. NISAR AHMED, . He also referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ATHMANATHASWAMI DEVASTHANAM v. K. GOPALA SWAMI, .
5. In view of the above, the only question that falls for determination in this revision petition is as to whether on the facts of the case, the Court of Small Causes had the jurisdiction to entertain the suit and to pass the decree for possession/ejectment which is impugned herein?
6. To examine the aforesaid contention, it is relevant to notice Sections 8 and 9 of the Karnataka Small Cause Courts Act, 1964 ('the Act' for short) and Article 4 of the Schedule thereof, " 8. Cognizance of suits by Courts of Small Causes - (1) A Court of Small Causes shall not take cognizance of the suits specified in the schedule as suits excepted from the cognizance of a Court of Small Causes.
(2) Subject to the exceptions specified in the Schedule and to the provisions of any law for the time being in force, all suits of a civil nature of which the value does not exceed twenty- five thousand rupees shall be cognizable by a Court of Small Causes.
Provided that the State Government, in consultation with the High Court may by notification, direct that all suits of which the value does not exceed three thousand rupees shall be cognizable by a Court of Small Causes mentioned in the notification.
9. Exclusive jurisdiction of Courts of Small Causes - Save as expressly provided by this Act or by any other law for the time being in force, a suit cognizable by a Court of Small Causes shall not be tried by any other Court having jurisdiction, within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court of Small Causes by which the suit is triable."
Article 4 of the Schedule, which forms part of Section 8 of the Act reads as follows:
"SCHEDULE SUITS EXCEPTED FROM THE COGNIZANCE OF COURT OF SMALL CAUSES (See Section 8) (1)......................
(2) .....................
(3) .....................
(4) a suit for the possession of immovable property or for the recovery of an interest in such property but not including a suit for ejectment where
(a)the property has been let under a lease or permitted to be occupied, by a written instrument or orally, and
(b) the Court of Small Causes would be competent to take cognizance of a suit for the rent of the property, and
(c) the only substantial issue arising for the decision is as to whether the lease has been determined by efflux 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."
(underlining supplied)
7. A plain reading of the aforesaid provisions of the Act would show that a suit for ejectment and/or for recovery of rent can be tried by a Court of Small Causes where the property has been let under a lease or permitted to be occupied and where the value of such a suit does not exceed Rs. 25,000/- and the only substantial issue arising for decision is as to whether the lease has been determined by efflux 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 permission to occupy has been withdrawn. This does not mean that the Court cannot go into any other incidental question which requires to be decided to consider the suit claim cognizable by it.
8. It is relevant to state that a suit for ejectment generally means an action to recover possession of immovable property and includes a suit for possession by the lessor against the lessee. In this context, it is relevant to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SHANTHI DEVI v. AMAL KUMAR, AIR 1981 SC 1550. A perusal of the said judgment would show that a suit for ejectment on termination of tenancy is maintainable in law.
9. It is not disputed by the petitioner's learned Counsel that the value of the suit in question did not exceed Rs. 25,000/- and the suit claim for possession was based on the termination of tenancy. As rightly held by the trial Court, the provisions of the Rent Act does not apply to the suit premises. Accordingly, the suit so far as it relates to possession/ejectment is cognizable by a Court of Small Causes under the Act. It is true that this Court in the judgments referred to by the learned Counsel for the petitioner has held that a Court of Small Causes has no jurisdiction to entertain a suit for damages/mesne profits. However that does not mean that a Court of Small Causes has no jurisdiction to pass a decree for ejectment/possession if granting of the said relief is permissible under the provisions of the Act referred to above by rejecting the claim for damages/mense profits made in the suit. In this context, it is relevant to refer to a Division Bench decision of this Court in BASANGOUDA RAYANGOUDA PATIL v. BHAIRAPPA GURUUNGAPPA SHIVAPUR, 1969(2) Mys.LJ. 440. It was held therein that if the Court has no jurisdiction to grant one of the reliefs sought for in the suit, it can reject the said relief and proceed to adjudicate the other reliefs. The trial Court i.e. the Court of Small Causes has adopted the said course in this case.
10. Now I will refer to the judgments of this Court relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. In the case of BANGALORE PRINTING and PUBLISHING Co. LTD. , this Court vide para 8 of the judgment has held that a suit for ejectment falling within the exceptions carved out of Article 4 of the Schedule of the Act is maintainable. In KHANDELWAL'S CASE , this Court vide para 15 of the judgment, referring to the Bangalore Printing Case has held that a Court of Small causes can entertain a suit for ejectment as envisaged under Article 4 of the Schedule of the Act. Hence, none of the aforesaid two judgments say that a Court of Small Causes under the Act has no jurisdiction to entertain a claim or to grant a relief falling within the exception carved out of Article 4 of the Schedule of the Act.
11. On the facts of this case, as discussed above, the nature of relief granted by the impugned decree would undoubtedly fall within the exception carved out under Article 4 of the schedule of the Act. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and decree cannot be said to be without jurisdiction warranting interference under the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 18 of the Act.
12. However, having regard to the fact that the suit was originally instituted in the year 1999 and that the petitioner is using the suit premises for non-residential purpose, I deem it appropriate to grant six months time to vacate the premises.
13. In view of the above, I make the following order:
The tenant/petitioner is granted six months time to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the suit premises to the respondent/landlord subject to her filing an undertaking by way of an affidavit to this Court within six weeks from today to the effect that (i) she would voluntarily vacate and deliver vacant possession of the suit premises to the respondent/landlord on or before expiry of the aforesaid time granted, (ii) she would not induct any third parties into the premises, and (iii) she would pay the monthly rent regularly till the date of vacating of the premises.
14. Subject to the above, the revision petition is dismissed by affirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court. No costs.