DODDANNAVAR BROS Vs. MALATHIBAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff (Respondent-1 in this revision) filed a suit for recovery of possession of the suit property containing a residential house and an open site bearing No. 27/A out of S. No. 24/1A, measuring East to West 140 feet and South to North 102 feet. According to her, she purchased the said property for Rs. 25,000/- from one Teragundi According to her, the first defendant is a registered firm; defendant-2 is one of the partners of the said firm. The defendants are occupying the suit premises on a monthly rental of Rs. 35/-. The defendants' tenancy has been terminated by a notice. The plaintiff and her family members are residing in a rented house. So, she requires the petition premises for her own use. The plaintiff had filed HR.C. No, 219/1975 in the Court of the Munsiff, Belgaum, on the ground that the provisions of the Rent Control Act applied to the property in question. The property came to be included subsequently in the Municipal limits. In view of the decision of this Court in Balawant Shamarao Deshpande -v.- Sadashiv Haripant Kulkarni and Others, 1975 (1) KLJ 386 to the effect that the Rent Control Act was not applicable to the extended area of the Municipality in the absence of a Notification issued by the State Government, the plaintiff withdrew that suit on 23-11-1976 with permission to file a suit. Hence, the suit for permission.

(2.) The defendants resisted the suit on the following grounds :The Small Causes Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit of the present nature. The purchase of the agricultural land by the plaintiff violates the provisions of the Land Reforms Act. The purchase of the suit property by the plaintiff is denied. The plaintiff's title to the area in question is denied. There is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant. The Court fee paid is not proper. The provisions of the House Rent Control Act would apply to the case.

(3.) The Trial Court came to the conclusion that the area where the suit property is situate, was not brought within the ambit of the Rent Control Act, by a subsequent Notification of the Government. According to it, the Rent Control Act will not apply to those areas which have been subsequently brought into the limits of Belgaum Municipality, Thus, it held that the Small Causes Court has got the jurisdiction to try the suit and the Court fee paid was pro-per. It is no doubt true that in Dattaram N. Anvekar -v.-Shankar L. Parulukat, ILR (Karnataka) 1979 (2) 1880 (FB) the Full Bench of this Court held that if any new area is added by virtue of a Notification issued under the provisions of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964, to any village, municipal area or notified area mentioned in Schedule II of the Rent Control Act, another Notification making provisions of the Rent Control Act applicable to the included area must also be issued again by the Government. It was held in the said case that in the absence of a Notification, the provisions of the Rent Control Act will not apply to the area which has been freshly included in the Municipal limits.