HEAD QUARTERS ASSISTANT THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONERS OFFICE MYSORE Vs. VENDI CHAND HASTHIMAL AND COMPANY MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three defendants appeals arise out of common judgment and order of remand dated 28-2-1994 delivered by the ii additional civil judge, mysore in regular appeal nos. 234 to 236 of 1993 filed by Sri b. Shama rao, h. Ganeshmal, M/s. Abdul kareem abubekar sait m and company and Sri vendi chand hastimal and company, respectively challenging the common judgment and order dated 1-10-1993 passed by the 1st principal munsiff, Mysore in original suit nos. 2094, 2098 and 2102 of 1990 by the aforesaid three plaintiffs who were appellants before the first appellate court, whereby the trial court i. e. the learned munsiff has dismissed the plaintiffs suit on the ground that in view of the applicability of Karnataka public premises (eviction of unauthorised occupants) Act, 1974, the suit was not maintainable according to the learned trial court. The lower appellate court upset the finding by setting aside the judgment of the trial court, restored the suits and remanded the three suits to the trial court to readmit the suits to their original numbers and to try them afresh after framing the additional issues as regards the declaratory relief sought in the suit.

(2.) THE facts of the case in brief are that the plaintiffs-respondents filed those suits alleging and claiming them selves to be the tenants in occupation of the respective premises in question. The plaintiffs claim in the suit that though the premises in question belong to the government and those premises were let out by the executive engineer of the p. w. d. department under an agreement. The plaintiffs-opposite parties case has been that the plaintiffs tenancy has not been terminated and they have continued as tenants under Section 116 of the Transfer Of Property Act. According to plaintiffs though the premises may be the public premises but as they are not in unauthorised occupation of the premises in question forming part of the public premises, Karnataka public premises (eviction of unauthorised occupants) Act, 1974 was not applicable to the plaintiffs-respondents and as the plaintiffs were not the unauthorised occupants, so the opposite parties to be restrained from proceeding against the plaintiffs under Section 4. In the plaint it has been mentioned that the opposite parties had issued a notice to the plaintiffs on 14-8-1980 informing the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs-opposite parties were the unauthorised occupants of the respective premises and they were called upon to show-cause on or before 25-8-1980 i. e. the dates mentioned in the notice to the defendant 1 as to why action be not taken against the plaintiffs-respondents under the Provisions of the Karnataka public premises (eviction of unauthorised occupants) act. The plaintiffs further alleged that they filed the reply to the show-cause notice informing the authorities that the plaintiffs have not been in unauthorised occupation of the premises in their possession. The plaintiffs further alleged that plaintiffs had appeared before the defendants office to verify if any order has been passed, but they were not given any information as regards passing or non-passing of the eviction order against the plaintiffs. That the plaintiffs were not informed that if any order of eviction or otherwise was passed against the plaintiffs-respondents. The plaintiffs-opposite parties apprehend that the opposite parties may evict or turn out the plaintiffs from the premises and as the act is not applicable, the action of opposite parties is unauthorised, so prayed that degree for injunction be granted against the defendants restraining them from taking any action or initiating any action or continuing any action against the plaintiffs under the said act i. e. the Karnataka public premises (eviction of unauthorised occupants) Act, 1974. The plaintiffs further claimed declaratory degree that act is not applicable to the plaintiffs.

(3.) IN the suit written statement was filed by the defendants-appellants taking various pleas, including the plea to the effect that the civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and that plaintiffs had no locus standi to file the suit. The defendants took the plea that the Karnataka public premises (eviction of unauthorised occupants) act was applicable. The defendants also stated in the written statement that final orders for eviction have already been passed against the plaintiffs. On the basis of the pleas taken by the parties issues were framed by the trial court. The learned munsiff framed the following issues: