Karnataka High Court
Sri Munir Ahmed Quraishi vs B Venkatanarayana Setty on 9 January, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:1381
RFA No. 433 of 2012
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.433 OF 2012 (RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI.MUNIR AHMED QURAISHI
S/O HAJI M.A. QURAISHI
MAJOR
NO.218/54, 11TH CROSS
WILSON GARDEN
BENGALURU - 560 027
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.K.P.BHUVAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
B.VENKATANARAYANA SETTY
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS
Digitally signed
by AL BHAGYA 1. B.V.SUDHAKAR
Location: HIGH
COURT OF S/O LATE B.VENKATANARAYANA SETTY
KARNATAKA
62 YEARS
R/AT NO.156, 5TH CROSS
WILSON GARDEN
BENGALURU - 560027
2. DR.B.V.L PRASAD @ DR.LAKSHMI PRASAD
S/O LATE B.VENKATANARAYANA SETTY
MAJOR
R/AT NO.38, MANBOURNE DRIVE
MAMARONECK NEWYORK
U.S.A - 10543
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:1381
RFA No. 433 of 2012
HC-KAR
3. SMT.Y.INDIRA RAJAN YADALLA
D/O LATE B.VENKATANARAYANA
SETTY
MAJOR
R/AT NO.2 HEATHER (COURT) CONTRACT
FISH KILL
NEWYORK
U.S.A - 12524
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.HEMANTH S, ADVOCATE (ABSENT))
THIS RFA IS FILED U/SEC.96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.11.2011 PASSED IN
O.S.1532/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE XXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE,
BANGALORE, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR THE EJECTMENT AND
ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
ORAL JUDGMENT
The captioned appeal is filed by the appellant - defendant assailing the judgment and decree dated 23.11.2011 passed in O.S.No.1532/2006 on the file of the XXV Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City (CCH No.23).
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:1381 RFA No. 433 of 2012 HC-KAR
2. For the sake of brevity, the parties are referred as they are ranked before the Trial Court.
3. The facts leading to the case are as under; The plaintiff instituted a suit for ejectment in O.S.No.1532/2006 contending that the suit schedule premises had been let out to the defendant by the plaintiff's daughter, B.V. Padmini, on a monthly rent of Rs.3,000/-. The plaintiff traced his title as the father of the lessor and placing reliance on the orders passed in P & SC No.42/2004 issued a quit notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and thereafter, filed the suit seeking delivery of vacant possession along with arrears of rent.
4. The defendant entered appearance and contested the suit, disputing both the jural relationship of landlord and tenant as well as the title of the plaintiff. The parties were relegated to trial. Upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court decreed the suit, -4- NC: 2026:KHC:1381 RFA No. 433 of 2012 HC-KAR holding that the plaintiff had succeeded in establishing that the defendant was a tenant under him in respect of the suit schedule premises on a monthly rent of Rs.3,000/- and that the plaintiff was entitled to seek eviction pursuant to the order passed by the Probate Court in P & SC No.42/2004. The Trial Court further recorded a categorical finding that the tenancy had been validly terminated by issuance of quit notice dated 10.10.2005. While answering issue No.3, the Trial Court also held that the defendant was a chronic defaulter and was legally liable to pay arrears of rent amounting to Rs.93,000/- for the period from 01.03.2003 to 24.10.2005.
5. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, the defendant has preferred the present appeal fundamentally assailing the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. It is contended that even if the plaint averments are accepted in their entirety, the admitted agreed rent being Rs.3,000/- per month, the suit was not maintainable before the Regular Civil Court in view of the statutory bar under Section -5- NC: 2026:KHC:1381 RFA No. 433 of 2012 HC-KAR 2(e) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, which excludes the jurisdiction of Civil Courts in respect of the premises where the agreed rent does not exceed Rs.3,500/- per month. It is, therefore, urged that the Trial Court inherently lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit and consequently, the decree passed is a nullity. In support of this contention, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the authoritative judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kiran Singh and others vs. Chaman Paswan and Others1, to contend that a decree passed by a Court lacking inherent jurisdiction is void and can be challenged even at the appellate stage.
6. There is no representation on behalf of the respondent-plaintiff.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and upon perusal of the record, the following points arise for consideration:
1
(1954) 1 SCC 710 -6- NC: 2026:KHC:1381 RFA No. 433 of 2012 HC-KAR
(i) Whether the ejectment suit instituted by the plaintiff was not maintainable before the Civil Court, having regard to the admitted agreed rent of Rs.3,000/-
per month and whether the suit was barred under Section 2(e) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 rendering the decree passed by the Trial Court a nullity?
(ii) Whether, in the absence of a specific plea regarding maintainability in the written statement, the defendant is entitled to raise the issue of lack of jurisdiction for the first time at the appellate stage and seek invalidation of the decree on the ground that the suit is barred by Section 2(e) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999?
(iii) What order?
Findings on Point Nos.1 and 2;
8. Before this Court adverts to the question of law raised by the defendants' counsel, this Court deems it necessary to advert to the pleadings and also the contents of the legal notice issued vide Ex.P.13. Para No.4 of the plaint would be relevant and therefore, this Court deems it fit to extract para No.4 of the plaint, which reads as under;
-7-
NC: 2026:KHC:1381 RFA No. 433 of 2012 HC-KAR "4. The defendant was a monthly tenant under the said Smt.B.V.Padmini in occupation of Schedule premises on a monthly rent of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand Only) executive of electricity and water charges and the tenancy being month to month commencing from the First day of every English Calendar month and ending on the last day of the same month terminable by fifteen days notice."
(emphasis supplied by me)
9. This Court also deems it fit to extract the relevant portion of the legal notice issued by the plaintiff on 10.10.2005 evidenced at Ex.P.13 and the same reads as under;
"You are a monthly tenant under the said B.V.Padmini in occupation of the Schedule Premises on monthly rent of Rs.3,000/- exclusive of electricity and water charges and the tenancy being month to month and commencing from the first day of every English Calendar month and ending on the last day of same month terminable by 15 days notice."
(emphasis supplied by me)
10. This Court also deems it fit to extract 2(e)(i) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, which reads as under; -8-
NC: 2026:KHC:1381 RFA No. 433 of 2012 HC-KAR "2(e)(i) three thousand five hundred rupees per month in any area referred to in part A of the first schedule; and"
11. In the backdrop of the admitted pleadings extracted hereinabove and the unequivocal recital contained in the legal notice at Ex.P.13, it emerges without any scope for controversy that the plaintiff himself has categorically admitted that the agreed monthly rent in respect of the suit schedule premises is Rs.3,000/-. It is also not in dispute that the suit schedule property is situated within the limits of Bengaluru City, which admittedly falls under Part 'A' of the First Schedule to the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999. In this admitted factual matrix, the statutory scheme engrafted under Section 2(e)(i) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 assumes decisive significance. The said provision makes it abundantly clear that only those premises where the deemed rent or standard rent exceeds Rs.3,500/- per month stand excluded from the applicability of the Act. Conversely, where the rent is Rs.3,500/- or below, the provisions of -9- NC: 2026:KHC:1381 RFA No. 433 of 2012 HC-KAR the Karnataka Rent Act are squarely attracted. Therefore, in the present case, where the admitted rent is Rs.3,000/- per month, the relationship between the parties and the relief of eviction sought by the plaintiff are governed exclusively by the provisions of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 and consequently, the jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute vests solely with the Rent Court constituted under the said Act to the exclusion of the ordinary Civil Court.
12. In the light of the above statutory mandate, this Court is required to examine whether the defendant is entitled to assail the decree on the ground of lack of inherent jurisdiction at the appellate stage. The issue is no longer res integra. The authoritative pronouncement of the Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan (cited supra) squarely governs the field. The Hon'ble Apex Court has unequivocally held that a decree passed by the Court lacking inherent jurisdiction is a nullity in the eye of law and that such invalidity can be set up whenever and
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:1381 RFA No. 433 of 2012 HC-KAR wherever the decree is sought to be enforced or relied upon including at the stage of execution or even in collateral proceedings. It has been further laid down that a defect of jurisdiction whether pecuniary, territorial, or with respect to the subject-matter strikes at the very root of the authority of the Court to pass a decree, and such a defect cannot be cured by consent, waiver, acquiescence or failure to raise an objection at the earliest stage.
13. The Trial Court committed a manifest error in entertaining and decreeing the suit for ejectment, notwithstanding the statutory bar operating against the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. Under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the jurisdiction of Civil Courts is plenary in nature but stands expressly or impliedly excluded where a special statute creates rights and liabilities and provides a complete and efficacious machinery for adjudication. The Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 is a self-contained code which not only regulates the rights of landlords and tenants but also confers exclusive jurisdiction on the Rent Court in
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:1381 RFA No. 433 of 2012 HC-KAR respect of premises governed by the Act. Once the plaintiff unequivocally admitted that the agreed rent was Rs.3,000/- per month and that the premises is situated within Bengaluru City, the suit was clearly barred by virtue of Section 2(e)(i) of the Act, thereby impliedly excluding the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. The objection in the present case goes to the root of inherent jurisdiction, and therefore, the bar contained in Section 21 CPC., has no application as the said provision applies only to objections relating to territorial or pecuniary jurisdiction and not to lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. It is well settled by the Constitution Bench judgment in Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan (cited supra) that a decree passed by a Court lacking inherent jurisdiction is a nullity and that such an objection can be raised at any stage including in appeal or execution. The same principle has been reiterated in Dhulabhai v. State of Madhya Pradesh2, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where a statute gives 2 AIR 1969 SC 78
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:1381 RFA No. 433 of 2012 HC-KAR finality to orders of special Tribunals and provides an adequate remedy, the Civil Court's jurisdiction stands excluded. Therefore, the Trial Court, despite clear statutory exclusion, erroneously assumed jurisdiction, rendering the entire proceedings and the decree passed therein void ab initio and non est in the eye of law.
14. Applying the aforesaid settled principles to the facts of the present case, this Court has no hesitation in holding that once the plaintiff himself admits that the agreed rent is Rs.3,000/- per month, the Civil Court stood divested of jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the suit for ejectment. The only forum competent to decide the lis was the Rent Court under the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999. Consequently, the decree passed by the Civil Court suffers from an incurable defect of inherent lack of jurisdiction and is, therefore, a nullity and non est in the eye of law. In view of the law declared by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the defendant is entitled to raise the issue of jurisdiction even at the appellate stage notwithstanding the fact that no
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:1381 RFA No. 433 of 2012 HC-KAR such plea was urged before the Trial Court. Accordingly, in the light of the foregoing discussion and the binding principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the point Nos.1 and 2 are answered in the Affirmative.
15. Point No.3:- In the light of the findings recorded on point Nos.1 and 2 holding that the Civil Court lacked inherent jurisdiction to entertain the suit, this Court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The Appeal is allowed.
(ii) The judgment and decree dated
23.11.2011 passed in
O.S. No.1532/2006 on the file of the
XXV Additional City Civil Judge,
Bengaluru City (CCH-23) are hereby
set-aside.
(iii) Consequently, the suit filed by the plaintiff stands dismissed as not maintainable for want of jurisdiction.
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:1381 RFA No. 433 of 2012 HC-KAR
(iv) It is, however, made clear that this order shall not preclude the plaintiff from pursuing such remedy as may be available in law before the competent forum, in accordance with the provisions of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32