M.S. NAGARAJ Vs. SHASHIKALA DESAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a tenant's revision petition calling in question judgment and decree passed by Small Causes Judge, Bangalore in S.C. No. 15235/2012 dated 03.07.2013 decreeing the suit for delivery of possession of suit schedule premises. I have heard the arguments of Sriyuths R.A. Devanand, learned Advocate appearing for revision petitioner and M.V. Sundara Raman, learned Advocate appearing for respondent. Perused the order under revision as also the records secured from the trial Court. Parties are referred to as per their rank in the trial Court.

(2.) IT is the contention of Sri Devanand that proceedings initiated before the Small Causes Court was without jurisdiction. Determination of tenancy is improper and bad in law. Section 2(3)(g) of Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 is attracted and as such, landlord ought to have initiated eviction proceedings under the said Act and could not have sought for a direction to the defendant to deliver possession of the suit schedule premises by filing a small causes suit. Elaborating his submissions, he contends that proceedings initiated against the defendant by filing a suit under Section 26 read with Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is not maintainable and proceedings for eviction ought to have been initiated under Section 27 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999. He would draw the attention of the Court to paragraph VII of the plaint to contend that payment of Court fee indicates that plaint is valued as though it is a suit. He would also draw the attention of the Court to paragraph IV of the plaint whereunder the plaintiff has admitted that provisions of Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 are inapplicable and as such, he contends that it can be easily inferred that it is a suit for possession which is also visible from the prayer made in the suit and as such eviction petition ought to have been filed. Hence, he would contend that provisions of Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 is applicable and Court of Small Causes has no jurisdiction to try the suit. He would draw the attention of the Court to Article 4 read with Section 8 of the Small Cause Courts Act, 1964 to contend that plaintiff ought to have initiated eviction proceedings before Small Causes Court and could not have filed a suit for possession.

(3.) HE would further submit that Section 2(3)(e) and 2(3)(g) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 have to be read together and it is an inclusion clause and all areas or building falling under the schedule as described under Section 3(c)(1) would fall within the jurisdiction of Small Causes Court which is empowered to adjudicate eviction proceedings and as such, suit in question is not maintainable. In support of his submission, he relies upon the judgment in the case of Abdul Wajid Vs. A.S. Onkarappa, ILR (2011) KAR 229 .