P M GURUVAIAH Vs. KRISHNAVENAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two CRPs are preferred by the defendant and the plainiiff respectively against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Small Causes Judge of the Court of Small Causes, Bangalore, in SC No. 1764 of 1974. The Small Causes Court, after coming to the conclusion that the mortgage and the lease formed part of one transaction and the lease was only a design for securing prompt payment of interest, had decreed the suit on the basis that the suit was for recovery of interest. The suit in question was, in fact, for recovery of arrears of rent. It was because of this, the suit was filed as a small cause suit in the Court of Small Causes.

(2.) The defendant has challenged the decree on the ground that it is without jurisdiction and the plaintiff has challenged the correctness of the finding that the mortgage and the lease formed part one transaction and the lease was an integral part of the same transaction and it was only designed for securing prompt payment of interest. It is not in dispute that the mortgage deed and the lease deed have been executed on the same day i.e., 13 9-1962.

(3.) It was contended on behalf of the petitioner defendant that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant ; that the lease was an integral part of the mortgage transaction and it was only intended to ensure prompt payment of interest to the mortgagee ; that the Small Causes Court on coming to the conclusion that the lease transaction was an integral part of the mortgage and it was intended to ensure prompt payment of interest, ceased to have jurisdiction over the matter and as such, it was not open for it to decree the suit as it was not open for the Small Causes Court to pass a decree for recovery of arrears of interest due from a mortgagor to a mortgagee, inasmuch as such a claim was nothing but to recover an interest in the immoveable property which was beyond the purview of a Small Causes Court.