Y NARAYANA RAI Vs. A C APPAJI RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision application is filed by the tenant against the order passed by the Munsiff on the 20th of January, 1971, holding that at that stage it was not possible to hold that the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the application. It arises in this way: The respondent-landlord filed an application for eviction of the petitioner on several grounds under the Mysore Rent Control Act, 1961. The contention of the tenant is that the property which has been leased out to him is an agricultural holding and not a premises as defined under the Mysore Rent Control Act, and, therefore the proceedings initiated for his eviction under the provisions of S.21 of the Rent Control Act, are not maintainable. The main contention of the tenant is that the proceedings under Rent Control Act are not maintainable at all. The tenant made a prayer to the Court to raise preliminary issue and requested the Court to dispose of that issue. The learned Judge took the view that it would be inappropriate for him to decide the matter tentatively. He therefore held, that at that stage it cannot be held that the proceedings under the Rent Control Act are barred. The learned Judge also took the view that the Rent Control Act did not envisage preliminary hearing on any points and he therefore held, that it is not possible to hold that the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the proceedings at this stage and so rejected the prayer of the tenant. It is the correctness of this order that is challenged in this revision application. The landlord then applied for an order Under S.29 of the Rent Control Act, to direct the tenant to deposit the rents. The Court passed an order directing payment. The tenant did not deposit the amount. So an order stopping further proceedings has been passed and that is challenged in CRP. No.361 of 1971.

(2.) In my view, the learned Judge has approached the entire matter from an erroneous view. The word 'tenant' has been defined under S.3(r) of the Act as stating any person by whom or on whose account rent is payable for a premises and 'Premises' is defined in S.3(n) as (i) a building defined in clause (a); (ii) any land not used for agricultural purposes. So, the proceedings under the Rent Control Act can be initiated against a tenant as defined under the Act, i. e., a tenant of any premises. If relationship is not disputed then the Court can proceed in the matter. When the very jurisdictional fact is challenged on the ground that the property occupied by the person is not a premises, it was incumbent on the Court to determine this jurisdictional fact. If it is not determined at an early stage, irreparable damage will be caused to the tenant as in the present case. It is necessary to note that there will be no other stage when this question can be decided. If the present order is upheld then the tenant will have no opportunity to show that the proceedings are not maintainable and the order stopping further proceedings become final. This view taken by me is supported by the decision of this Court in the case of Venkataram v. P.H.Seshagiri Roa, 1065 1 Mys.L.J. 560. At page 561 this is what this Court has stated:

(3.) In view of the clear observations of this Court, the Court deciding a case under the Kent Control Act has to decide whether the lease in the case is a lease of a premises as defined under S. 3 (n) of the Act, and unless a determination is made, it has no jurisdiction to go further in the matter.