DADA Vs. BASAVARAJ REVANASIDDAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal u/s 100 by the legal heirs of original defendant-a lessee who had resisted the ejectment suit in O.S. No. 155/2004 and which he could not defend successfully as the suit came to be decreed by the trial court and further an appeal before the lower appellate court in R.A. No. 15/2008 also came to be dismissed and therefore this second appeal. Submission of Sri. Ravi S. Balikai, learned counsel for the appellants is that firstly the quit notice issued u/s 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is not tenable, that the notice in the instant case should have been one u/s 111 particularly as it was the admitted case of the plaintiffs that there was a written lease between the parties and from year to year.

(2.) It is secondly contended that the trial court as well as the lower appellate court failed to focus issue on the disputed aspects that no proper or relevant issues had been framed and as lower appellate court has affirmed such a decree, both are equally bad in law and are liable to be set aside for not even framing proper issues in the suit and the matter deserves to be remanded to the trial court to proceed from the stage of framing of issues etc.

(3.) It is thirdly contended that the trial court did not have jurisdiction as the learned Judge was exercising jurisdiction as a court of Civil Judge, (Junior Division) functioning under the provisions of the Karnataka Civil Courts Act, 1964 whereas the suit should have been instituted before the Court of Small Causes under the provisions of the Karnataka Small Causes Courts Act, 1964, as the subject matter of the suit namely the annual rent for the premises being a meager sum of Rs. 240/-and that as the subject matter was only within the pecuniary jurisdiction of Court of Small Causes and as both questions have been decided erroneously by the courts below, the matter deserves examination in section 100 jurisdiction.