GADI NARAYANAPPA Vs. LAKSHMAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) the revision petitioner was defendant in S.C. No. 2803/1982 on the file of the court of small causes (scch-13), Bangalore. That was a suit filed by the plaintiff for ejectment of the defendant from the suit house bearing No. 402-350 situated in first division, yelahanka and for recovery of arrears of rent of Rs. 350/-. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant was inducted as a tenant of the suit house on a monthly rent of Rs. 35/- by one p.n. nagaraju and that nagaraju and other members of his family had sold the said house in her favour, under a registered sale deed dated 8-4-1981 and consequent upon the said sale deed, the tenancy of the defendant was also attorned in her favour. The defendant by a notice issued through his Advocate had admitted that he had been inducted into possession of the house as a tenant of nagaraju. However, he setup title in himself and'abandoned the claim of tenancy. Consequently, the plaintiff terminated his tenancy and filed this suit for possession of the leased house and also for recovery of the rent the defendant though admitted that he entered into possession of the suit house as a tenant under nagaraju has set up that there was an agreement to sell in his favour by the said nagaraju and he had paid various amounts to the said nagaraju and therefore, he was in possession of the suit house pursuant to the agreement to sell in his favour and he ceased to be a tenant in respect of the suit house. He denied that he had become the tenant under the plaintiff or that there was valid termination of his tenancy. He further pleaded that the suit was not maintainable in the small causes court.

(2.) the learned small causes judge, after evidence was adduced, raised the following points for his consideration and answered points 1 to 3 in the affirmative and consequently decreed the suit as prayed for:

(3.) in the course of this revision petition the following contention has been taken: the house in respect of which eviction has been sought is situated within the limits of yelahanka town municipal council, though, as on 13-7-1982 the date on which the suit was filed, the Provisions of Karnataka Rent Control Act (for short 'the act') and more particularly parts iv and v of the act were not applicable to the area comprised within yelahanka town municipal council, as it was not one of the places mentioned in schedule II of the Act, consequent upon amendment of schedule II of the Act, by act 17/1983, part v of the act has been made applicable to yelahanka town with effect from 31-12-1982 and by the time the suit was decreed on 23-1-1989, there was the clear embargo imposed by Section 21(1) of the act and therefore, there was no scope for the learned small causes judge to have passed the decree for eviction against the defendant. Further, it was contended that the revision petitioner has taken up the contention that in view of the agreement to sell in his favour, he has ceased to be the tenant and therefore, one of the substantial issues that has to be decided in the suit is: "whether there is agreement to sell in favour of the defendant as set up by him and whether therefore, he had ceased to be a tenant" and hence the suit does not come within the category of suits referred to in clause 4(c) of schedule II to the Karnataka Small Causes Courts Act, 1964, and therefore, there was no scope for the learned small causes judge to have proceeded with the suit and determine the several questions arising between the parties.