RATANLAL Vs. T.G. SATHISH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant has preferred this revision petition against the judgment made in S.C. No. 2172/2011, which reads thus:

(2.) THE opinion of the Division Bench that Court of Small Causes can take cognizance only of such suits which are filed seeking ejectment of tenants of the premises to which KR Act applies runs contrary to the provisions of said Act as such it does not lay down correct law. In respect of the premises to which KR Act is applicable, only the 'Court' specified under Clause (c) of Section 3 of KR Act alone is competent to make order for recovery of such premises on the landlord proving any one or more grounds enumerated therein.

(3.) IN the context of jurisdiction of Court of Small Causes to take cognizance of a suit for ejectment, recovery to mesne profits would not amount to either recovery of an/interest in the immovable property or determination or enforcement of any other right or interest in the immovable property, and the Court of Small Causes is competent to consider prayer for mesne profits against non -statutory tenant after termination/determination of lease subject to its pecuniary jurisdiction. The contrary view expressed by the Division Bench in this regard does not lay down correct law.