AZEEZ AND CO Vs. MARITHIMMIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is by a defendant who has failed in both the Courts below. The suit is for a declaration that the ex parte order of eviction obtained by the defendant against the plaintiff under the provisions of the Mysore House Rent and Accommodation Control Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Rent Contrrol Act), is not binding on the plaintiff and is not capable off being executed.

(2.) Certain material facets which are not in dispute may be stated. The suit schedule property consists of 9 guntas of land within the limits of Bangalore City and formed part of a land which the plaintiff had taken on lease from the defendant. The defendant filed a petition, HRC 661 of 1955, on the file of I Munsiff, Bangalore, for eviction of the plaintiff under the Rent Control Act. The plaintiff who was the respondent therein, raised a preliminary objection that the demised property in respect of which eviction was sought, was an agricultural land and not a house as defined in sub-sec(4) of S.2 of that Act and did not come within the purview of that Act and that hence the petition for eviction under that Act was not maintainable. That contention was upheld by the learned Munsiff, The defendant herein filed an appeal, HRC Appeal 14 of 1957, which was allowed by the District Judge. The plaintiff filed a revision petition CRP.733 off 1958, in this Court. This Court, by its order d/.28-6-1960, set aside the judgment of the learned Dist Judge and the order of the learned Munsiff and remanded the case for a fresh disposal according to law. This Court observed that it was open to the learned Munsiff to decide the question whether the property xvas an agricultural land or a house as defined in S.2(4) of the Rent Control Act. When the case, HRC 661 of 1955, came up before the learned Munsiff, after remand, the plaintiff who was the respondent therein, was absent and the learned Munsiff made an ex parte order for his eviction. His application for setting aside the ex parte order was dismissed by the learned Munsiff. The plaintiff's appeal and revision from the order of the teamed Munsiff refusing to set aside the ex parte order, were unsuccessful.

(3.) In the present suit, the plaintiff's case is that as the suit schedule property is an agricultural land and not a house as defined in the S.2(4) of the Rent Control Act, the learned Munsiff had no jurisdiction to make an order for eviction under the provisions of the Rent Control Act, that under the provisions of the Mysore Tenancy Act, 1952, and the Mysore Land Reforms Act 1961, the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts to grant a decree for eviction of a tenant from an agricultural land, was excluded and that hence, the order of eviction made by the learned Munsiff was without jurisdiction and a nullity and could not be executed against him (the plaintiff.