RAMESH P SETH Vs. M S KRISHNA MURTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff is the owner of the shop premises which is in the occupation of the defendant as a tenant. The rent of the premises is Rs. 870. 00 per month. As the provisions of the K. R. C. Act are not attracted to the shop in question in view of Section 31 of the said Act the plaintiff got issued a legal notice dated 30-10-1998 terminating the tenancy of the defendant in respect of the leased shop premises and the defendant was called upon to vacate and deliver the vacant possession of the shop premises on the expiry of 30-11-1998. The said legal notice was duly served on the defendant. The defendant admitted the tenancy, the rate of rent. However, he set up a plea of fresh lease for a further period of 15 years and therefore contended that he is not liable to vacate the shop premises. Therefore, the plaintiff was constrained to file the suit O. S. No. 9619 of 1998 on the file of the 14th Additional City Civil Judge court, Bangalore, for his ejectment and also for an enquiry to be held for determining the mesne profits for the wrongful use and occupation of the shop premises after the termination of the tenancy. The defendant contested the said claim by filing a written statement. In the written statement he admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant, the rate of rent and the receipt of the legal notice but he contended that the lease has been renewed for a further period of 15 years and therefore the plaintiff is not entitled to the decree for ejectment. He also contended that the City Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit for ejectment and for mesne profits as it is the Court of Small Causes which has the exclusive jurisdiction to grant the relief sought for. The Court apart from framing other issues framed the issue regarding jurisdiction in the following manner. "whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit?" the said issue was heard as a preliminary issue. The Court on consideration of the rival contentions and also taking note of Section 8 and article 4 in the Schedule to Section 8 in the Karnataka Court of Small causes Act came to the conclusion that though the suit for ejectment and for arrears of rent of less than Rs. 25,000. 00 is cognisable by the court of Small Causes only, as the plaintiff has sought for the relief of mesne profits for use and occupation of the shop premises after the termination of tenancy, such a suit is not cognizable by the Court of small Causes. Further, it held as the cause of action for both the reliefs is one and the same, the plaintiff cannot be compelled to file two suits in two different Courts for the aforesaid two separate reliefs and in that view of the matter he held the City Civil Court has jurisdiction to grant the relief sought for. Accordingly, he answered the preliminary issue. It is against the said order on additional issue regarding jurisdiction the defendant has preferred this revision.

(2.) SRI S. K. V. Chalapathy, learned Counsel for the petitioner contends though in respect of non-residential premises, the rent of which exceeds rs. 500. 00 p. m. Section 31 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (for short hereinafter referred to as the "k. R. C. Act") makes it clear, Part V of the said Act is not applicable, all the provisions contained in the said enactment except Part V are attracted to the lease in question. Therefore even after termination of tenancy of the defendant by issuing a valid quit notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act (for short hereinafter referred to as the "t. P. Act") the defendant continues to be a tenant as defined under Section 3 (r) of the K. R. C. Act, and what is payable by him to the landlord is the rent agreed prior to the termination and therefore, he does not become a trespasser or a person in unlawful possession or he is liable to pay compensation by way of damages or otherwise. In support of his contention, he relied on a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of B. S. Giridhar v P. V. Shetty and a judgment of this Court in the case of Triveni Theatres, bangalore v R. S. Devakumar and Another and contends that in view of the aforesaid declaration of law by this Court, what the plaintiffs would be entitled to from the defendant after the termination of the tenancy is not mesne profits, but rents only. If that is so, whatever the nomenclature adopted by the plaintiff in his prayer column, the suit will be one for rent and not for either damages or for mesne profits. Therefore, the small Cause Court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit for ejectment and for rent. The City Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and the order passed by the Trial Court is illegal and is liable to be set aside.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the respondents submitted that once the tenancy is terminated, under the provisions of the T. P. Act by issue of a notice under Section 106 of the Act, or the tenancy comes to an end by efflux of time, the tenant's possession would become unlawful. The relationship of landlord and tenant comes to an end and the tenant continuing in possession after termination of the tenancy, will be liable to pay damages for use and occupation, whether it would be called as compensation or as mesne profits. A suit for recovery of mesne profits or damages for use and occupation, is in the nature of suit for recovery of interest in such property and such a suit is excepted from the cognizance of the Court of Small Causes. Therefore, the finding recorded by the court below is correct and legal and it does not call for interference.