A BASKER Vs. YOGINI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present review petition is filed seeking review of the order dated 09.01.2018 passed in W.P.No.622/ 2018 by this Court, mainly on the ground that the judgment relied upon by the Appellate Court and this Court in the case of B. Krishnappa Vs. Smt. Chandrika reported in 2007(1) KLJ 468 is not applicable to the facts of the present case, since the very suit filed by the plaintiff for simplicitor for ejectment of the occupancy or revocation of license and therefore the small causes Court has no jurisdiction to grant the relief sought for.

(2.) This Court considering the arguments advanced by Sri G.H.Ravikumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, has recorded a finding that, it is not in dispute that the plaintiff filed the suit for ejectment directing the defendant to deliver and hand over the vacant possession of the schedule premises to the plaintiff within the time prescribed. According to the plaintiff, the relief claimed is valued on the basis of 12 months license fee at the rate of Rs. 1,000.00 per month (i.e., Rs. 1,000.00 x 12 =Rs. 12,000.00) and past mesne profits for the months of Nov. and Dec. 2017 at the rate of Rs. 1,000.00 per month ( i.e., Rs. 1,000.00 x 2 =Rs. 2,000.00 ) and Rs. 550.00 towards cost of notice, in total Rs. 14,550.00. Accordingly, the Court fee was paid on the said amount. It is specifically stated in the plaint that the plaintiff is the owner of the property in question and the defendant had requested the plaintiff to permit him to occupy the schedule premises for a temporary period and accordingly, the plaintiff allowed him to occupy the schedule premises as a licensee or permissive occupier, free of rent or license fee on humanitarian grounds.

(3.) The same is disputed by the defendant and filed the written statement stating that he has constructed the plaint schedule premises in the year 1988 in the property measuring 3 cents in Sy.No.79 of Bajal village and he is the absolute owner of the said premises and he has perfected his right, title and interest in respect of the land by way of adverse possession. Except stating so, the defendant has not filed any counter-claim. The pleadings of the plaint clearly indicate that suit filed for eviction and the defendant is in permissive occupation. The court fee has to be paid on the basis of the plaint averments and the prayer sought in the plaint, but not on the basis of the averment made in the written statement. The lower appellate Court, considering the entire material on record, recorded a finding that the suit filed by the plaintiff before the Trial Court was maintainable and the Trial Court has not considered the fact that the suit is the simplicitor of ejectment of the occupant on revocation of license. Therefore, the Trial Court has got jurisdiction to grant the relief sought for and the matter was remanded for fresh disposal on merits. The same is in accordance with law. That is how, the writ petition came to be dismissed.