MAHAMMAD IQBAL Vs. MOHAMADGOUS LALMIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision filed under S. 115 of CPC is directed against the order dated 27-10-1978 passed by the II Addl. District Judge, Belgaum, in H. R. C. R. P. No. 46 of 1978, on the file of his Court, whereby in reversal of the order dated 5-7-1978 passed by the I Addl. Munsiff, Belgaum, in I. A. I. in H. R. C. No. 258 of 1977, he had directed the Munsiff, to hear and decide the question relating to the relationship of the parties as landlord and tenant as a preliminary issue and then to hear the parties on the merits of case. The question of law that arises for decision in this revision is, whether in a proceeding for eviction instituted under the Karnataka Rent Control Control Act, where the respondent disputes the existence of relationship as landlord and tenant between the applicant and the respondent, it is necessary to decide the issue regarding the existence of such relationship as landlord and tenant as a preliminary issue. The question arises in this way. The four petitioners, who are related among themselves as full brothers, made an application under S. 21(1) (h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, for possession of the premises in the occupation of the respondents alleging inter alia, that they were owners and landlords of the premises and the respondents were their tenants and they required the premises in question reasonably and bona fide for their personal use and occupation. The respondents though admitted they were tenants in possession of the premises, denied either the petitioners were the owners or there existed such a relationship as landlords and tenants between the petitioners and the respondents. They also denied even that petitioners required the premises reasonably and bonafide for their personal use and occupation. When the case was set down for enquiry, respondent-1 made I.A.I to frame an issue to the effect whether the petitioners prove that respondent No.-1 is their tenant of the petition premises and requested to decide the said issue as a preliminary issue before proceeding to record the evidence in the case. The petitioners opposed the application on the ground that there was no necessity to frame such an issue and decide it as preliminary issue and that the same could be tried along with the other issues arising in The case to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. After hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, the learned Munsiff being of the view that unless the statute vested the power to decide the existence of such relationship as landlord and tenant between the parties in any other authority, the Court having jurisdiction under the Act could decide the issue along with the other issues in the absence of any provision in the Act to raise and decide such issue as a preliminary issue, and accordingly, he directed that the issue as sought for be raised and heard along with the merits of the case. Being aggrieved by the said order when the 1st respondent approached the District Judge in revision under Sec. 50 of the Act, the learned District Judge, taking into consideration the provisions contained in Order 14 Rule 2 CPC and being of the view that Ithe issue necessarily involved jurisdictional factor and, therefore, it had to be .decided as a preliminary issue, directed to decide the issue touching the relationship as a preliminary issue. The contention of Mr. N. A. Mandagi, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, is: even though in a proceeding instituted under the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, where the existence of relationship between the parties as landlord and tenant is disputed and the question relating to such relationship between the parties involves a jurisdictional fact, on the finding of which alone the Rent Court will have jurisdiction to decide the dispute between the parties, yet, in the absence of any provision made in the Act requiring the Court to hear the question as a preliminary issue, the Munsiff was perfectly justified not to hear it as a preliminary issue and leaving it to be decided along with other issues involved in the dispute between the parties; and the District Judge, had committed a material error and irregularity in setting aside the order passed by the Munsiff and directing him to hear the question regarding the existence of relationship between the parties as landlord and tenant, as a preliminary issue. Mr. R. U. Goulay, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, relying upon the provisions contained in 'Order 14 Rule 2 CPC supported the view taken by the learned District Judge. There is no doubt and it cannot also be disputed, the Munsiff function ing under the Act is not an ordinary Civil Court of general jurisdiction, but a tribunal of limited jurisdiction, and he exercises limited jurisdiction for the purpose of the Act under which he functions and existence of such relationship as landlord and tenant between the parties is a pre-requisite condition and where the applicant comes asserting the existence of such relationship and the respondent disputes the existence of such relationship, then the Munsiff has to decide that jurisdictional fact, in the absence of which he will have no jurisdiction to decide the dispute arising under the Act. While the averment made in the application regarding the existence of such relationship as landlord and tenant between the parties is ordinarily sufficient for the Court to entertain the application made under the provisions of the Act, but where the existence of such relationship is disputed by the respondent, it becomes necessary to decide the existence of such relationship as a jurisdictional fact. THIS is also the view taken by this Court in the case Venkataram v. Seshagiri Rao (1) . That was a case arising under Sec. 21 of the Mysore House Rent Control Act, 1951, where the respondents claiming to be the landlord of the petitioner brought an action for eviction and the existence of such relationship as landlord and tenant between the parties, was disputed. During the pendency of the proceedings an application was made for a direction being issued to the tenant to deposit rents in the Court and the Court, accordingly, passed on order directing the tenant to deposit certain sums as rent. The tenant without depositing the sum made an application for granting time to make the deposit". That application was dismissed. When the tenant approached the High Court in revision, it was contended that the tenant had disputed the status claimed by the respondents as landlords and without deciding that dispute the Court below had committed a material error in proceeding with the matter, in as much as that amounted to the Court proceeding with the case without jurisdiction. Narayana Pai, J. as he then was, upheld the contention and observed: