Smt.Vandana W/O Ashok Korvi vs Smt.Renuka W/O Shankar Wani
2022 Latest Caselaw 9462 Kant

                                                   -1-




                                                           CRP No. 100026 of 2021


                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

                               DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE, 2022

                                                 BEFORE
                                  THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.DEVDAS
                         CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 100026 OF 2021 (-)
                      BETWEEN:

                      SMT.VANDANA W/O ASHOK KORVI
                      AGE 46 YEARS, OCC HOUSEHOLD WORK,
                      R/O PLOT NO.33 AND 34, CORPORATION HOUSE NO.9,
                      CTS NO.1293, OUT OF RS NO.142, YASHWANT BHAAN,
                      NANAWADI, TILAKWADI, BELAGAVI.

                                                                       ...PETITIONER

                      (BY SRI. SANGRAM S KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)

                      AND:

                      SMT.RENUKA W/O SHANKAR WANI
                      AGE 34 YEARS, OCC HOUSEHOLD WORK,
                      R/O GONDHALI GALLI, KHANAPUR, DIST BELAGAVI,
                      THROUGH HER GPA HOLDER,
                      SHRI PARASHRAM S/O VITHOBA PATIL,
                      AGE 59 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE,
                      R/O AT POST JHUNGWADI VILLAGE, NANDGAD,
         Digitally
         signed by
         VINAYAKA     TQ KHANAPUR, DIST BELAGAVI.
         BV
VINAYAKA Location:
BV       Dharwad
         Date:
         2022.06.25                                                   ...RESPONDENT
         12:54:21
         +0530

                      (BY SRI.SANTOSH B.RAWOOT, ADV. FOR CAVEATER RESPONDENT)

                             THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC, PRAYING TO SET
                      ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 29.3.2021 PASSED BY
                      THE 3RD ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, BELAGAVI IN
                      SC NO.4/2017.

                           THIS CRP COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT
                      MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                                -2-




                                          CRP No. 100026 of 2021


                              ORDER

R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):

The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned

judgment passed by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge &

CJM, Belagavi in S.C.No.4/2017 dated 29.03.2021, by

which the suit filed for recovery of possession was decreed

and the petitioner/defendant was directed to handover the

possession of the suit premises to the respondent/plaintiff

within three months from the date of the order.

2. The basic contention of the learned counsel for

the petitioner is that the original suit filed before the Small

Causes Court was without jurisdiction. Therefore, an

objection in this regard was raised at the hands of the

petitioner before the trial court and the trial court framed

issue No.3 as follows:

"3. Whether the Small Causes has jurisdiction to

grant decree for possession in respect of residential

premises having rent of Rs.1,000?"

CRP No. 100026 of 2021

3. However, the trial court has proceeded on a

wrong footing that notice was issued by the

respondent/plaintiff under Section 106 of the Transfer of

Proper Act and the petitioner/defendant has admitted that

he is a tenant under the respondent/plaintiff. Learned

counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this

court to Clause 3 of Sub-section (3) of Section 2 of the

Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as 'the

Act' for short), that the provisions of the Act would apply

to all residential premises where the rent is not exceeding

Rs.3,500/- per month in any area referred to in Part 'A' of

First Schedule and Rs.2,000/- per month in any other

area. Part 'A' of First Schedule of the Act covers the area

within the limit of the cities situated under the Karnataka

Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 and within the radius of 3

k.m. from the limit of the said cities. Learned counsel for

the petitioner submits that the premises in question is

situated within the limits of Belagavi City Corporation and

even as per the respondent/plaintiff, the monthly rentals

CRP No. 100026 of 2021

agreed upon was Rs.1,000/- per month and therefore, the

original suit could not have been maintained before the

Small Causes Court or any civil court. Learned counsel

would therefore submit that the impugned judgment is

required to be set aside while holding that the suit itself

was not maintainable before the Small Causes Court.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the

respondent/plaintiff seeks to contend that Small Causes

Courts are required to consider a suit for possession of

immovable property or for recovery of an interest in such

property, in terms of Clause 4 of the Schedule appended

to the Small Causes Courts Act, 1964.

5. Having heard the learned counsels and on

perusing the petition papers, this court has also found that

this issue regarding the jurisdiction of the civil court in the

matter of eviction of a tenant in the light of the provisions

contained in the Act fell for consideration before this court

in the case of Anantswami Vs Smt.Radha Srinath and

Another reported in 2012(4) Kar.L.J. 402. His Lordship

CRP No. 100026 of 2021

Justice S.Abdul Nazeer, then as a Judge of this court

considered the provisions contained in the Karnataka Rent

Act, 1999 vis-à-vis Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and

while noticing the express provisions contained in Section

50 of the Act which bars the jurisdiction of the civil court

in respect of certain matters, held that if schedule

property is covered under Part 'A' of the First Schedule to

the Act, civil court cannot exercise jurisdiction in respect of

same as it is ousted by necessary implication. It was held

that Karnataka Rent act is a complete code in itself and

once the civil court having held that defendant is a tenant

under plaintiff in respect of suit schedule premises, it could

not have directed delivery of possession of the said

property. It was therefore held that, when the tenancy is

governed under the provisions of the Karnataka Rent Act,

the civil court has no jurisdiction to pass a decree for

possession of suit schedule property.

6. In the light of the above, the contentions of the

petitioner regarding the jurisdiction of the Small Causes

CRP No. 100026 of 2021

Court to go into the question of determination of tenancy

or considering the prayer of the respondent/plaintiff

seeking possession of the premises, is answered

accordingly. Consequently, this court proceeds to pass the

following:

ORDER

i) The civil revision petition is allowed.

ii) The impugned order dated 29.03.2021 passed

in S.C.No.4/2017 by the III Additional Senior

Civil Judge & CJM, Belagavi is hereby quashed

and set aside.

iii) However, since this court has held that the

Small Causes Court had no jurisdiction to

entertain the suit filed by the

respondent/plaintiff, liberty is also reserved to

the respondent/plaintiff to initiate action under

the provisions of the Karnataka Rent Act.

CRP No. 100026 of 2021

iv) If such a petition is filed, the court having

jurisdiction to entertain a petition for eviction

shall also take into consideration the time spent

by the respondent/plaintiff before the Small

Causes Court.

      v)    Ordered accordingly.


                                        SD
                                      JUDGE



MBS