AYESHA BEGUM Vs. VENKATASWAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 30-8-1988 passed in A.S.No. 119/86 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad confirming the judgment and decree of the III Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad dismissing the suit O.S. No. 3038/81.

(2.) The appellant herein is the plaintiff and respondent herein is the defendant in the said suit. That suit was filed by the appellant-plaintiff herein for ejectment of the respondent-defendant herein from the plaint schedule premises and for recovery of arrears of rent and mesne profits alleging that the respondent was inducted as tenant in the said premises with effect from 11-10-1965 and the monthly rent was enhanced to Rs. 25/- and that the defendant committed default in payment of rent from 11-1-1981 to 11-10-1981 and that the tenancy was terminated after issuing notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act. It is also alleged in the plaint that the suit house was constructed after 26-8-1957. The respondent-defendant resisted that suit. He denied the allegation that he is a tenant of the plaintiff with respect to the suit premises. He also pleaded that there is no relationship of landlord and tenancy and that the suit house was constructed prior to 1957 and as such, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the matter. The defendant also set up his own title to the suit House. Oral and documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of both the parties. On a consideration of the said oral and documentary evidence placed before him, the learned Asst. Judge held that Civil Court has no jutisdiction to try the suit in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in striking down Section 32(b) of A.P. Building (Lease, Rent, Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short 'Rent Control Act') and that Rent Control Act alone has got jurisdiction to try the suit in view of the G.O. No. 636 issued by the Government of A.P. and consequently, the plaintiff's suit was dismissed with costs. It may be stated here that while finding that this Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit, the learned Asst. Judge also gave his findings on merits that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and defendant and that the defendant is the owner of the suit premises. On appeal against the said findings, the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad also confirmed the said finding of the trial Court that Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit for ejectment. The learned Judge further held that the plaintiff is not entitled to recover the arrears of rent as the plaintiff failed to establish that the defendant has been in occupation of the suit premises as tenant of the plaintiff. Consequently, the appellate Court dismissed the appeal with costs. Challenging the said judgment and decree of the appellate Court, this second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the appellant-plaintiff raised the legal plea that when a Court hold that it has no jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the suit, it cannot decide the issues involved on merits and it has to return the plaint for presentation to the proper Court and that in the instant case, both the Courts below, having decided that they have no jurisdiction to try the plaintiff's suit for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent, they ought to have returned the plaint for presentation before the Rent Controller having jurisdiction and that both the lower Courts committed error in deciding the issues with regard to the relationship of landlord and tenant on merits. Therefore, the legal question that arises for consideration in this second appeal is whether a Court can decide the issues in dispute on merits after holding that it had no jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the suit.