MRS. E. WILLIAMS AND ANOTHER Vs. VALLABHDASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition under Sec. 115 C. P. C. to revise the order of the Second Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad holding that it is advisable to take up the issue No. 4 at the final stage of arguments after trial. The respondent filed a suit against the two petitioners for possession of the suit house, A/11, Vallabhadas Blocks, bearing Municipal No. F. 4 -175, situated in Nampalli, Hyderabad after evicting the defendants, who are the petitioners herein. The allegation in the plaint is that the defendants are trespassers and have no title or interest in the suit house. It is further alleged that the defendants appear to have collusively and wrongfully with the connivance of M. H. Durreni, the tenant, taken possession of the suit block during the pendency of the proceedings against him before the Rent Controller and have since then been retaining possession of the said house without the plaintiff's consent.

(2.) WHEN the suit was called on 14 -3 -1960, the advocate for the defendants was present, but the plaintiff's advocate was absent. Then, the lower Court passed the following order:

(3.) I , therefore, hold that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not ousted merely because the defendants pleaded in their written statement that they are the tenants and that the plaintiff is their landlord. Initially, it is the allegations in the plaint that determine the jurisdiction of the Court and not the averments in the written statement. The Court will have to try the issue after taking evidence and decide whether the defendants are the tenants under the plaintiff. If it comes to the conclusion that the relationship of the landlord and the tenant exists, it may have to hold, subject to its view on any other issues raised in the suit such as estoppel etc., that it has no jurisdiction to try the suit further. But, on the allegations in the plaint only, it cannot be held that the lower Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The order of the lower Court is right and the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with costs.