G HANUMANTHA ACHARYA Vs. K MADHAVA PRABHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The matter coming up for orders on I.A. No. Ill is taken up for final disposal and is disposed of by the following order after hearing the counsel.

(2.) This is a defendant's revision petition under Section 18 of the Karnataka Small Causes Courts Act. Plaintiff filed a suit for ejectment of the defendant and also for arrears of rent in the Court of the Civil Judge, Mangalore The case was listed as a Small Cause Suit. Defendant entered appearance and filed his written statement pleading that the tenancy was for life time and he was not in arrears of rent and that there was no proper termination of the lease and the trial court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. After filing the written statement, he remained absent when the case was posted for evidence. Thereafter, the plaintiff was examined and after receiving evidence on behalf of the plaintiff, the suit has been decreed directing the defendant to pay Rs. 172-50 and also directing to surrender vacant possession of the suit shop building to the plaintiff within three months from the date of the decree.

(3.) The Court has examined the question of jurisdiction raised by the defendant. Under Section 8 of the Karnataka Small Causes Courts Act, there is prohibition for the said Court to take cognizance of the suits specified in the Schedule as suits excepted from the cognizance of a Court of Small Causes. In the Schedule to the said Act, at Item 4,a suit for possession of immovable property or for the recovery of an interest in such property is listed as one of the excepted suits, but does not include a suit for ejectment where the property has been let under a lease or permitted to be occupied by a written instrument or orally and the Court of the Small Causes would be competent to take cognizance of a suit for the rent of the property and the only substantial issue arising for the decision is as to whether the lease has been determined by efflux of time. In the case on hand, the lease is admitted. But what has been pleaded is that the lease is for life time of the defendant. That the lease has been terminated is not in disputed as notice of termination has been marked in evidence. Therefore, the siut was one triable by the Court of Small Causes and therefore, there is no inherent lack of jurisdiction. The petitioner cannot now be permitted to plead that he was not given an opportunity as he chose to remain absent after filing the written statement and did not participate in the further proceedings before the Court. If there was any mistake made by his counsel, he has cause of action against his counsel and not the Court or against the plaintiff.