Karnataka High Court
M/S Keshavlal And Company vs M/S Hajee K Abdul on 4 December, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:43821
CRP No. 534 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.534 OF 2018 (SC)
BETWEEN:
1. M/S. KESHAVLAL AND COMPANY,
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM,
UMBRELLA MERCHANT,
D. NO.20-16-1067,
OPP. GOODS SHED ROAD, BUNDER,
MANGALURU-575 001
BY PARTNER KETAN VASANI
2. KETAN VASANI
S/O. NARENDAR KUMAR VASANI,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
MANAGING PARTNER,
M/S.KESHAVLAL AND COMPANY,
D.NO.20-16-1067,
OPP. GOODS SHED ROAD, BUNDER,
MANGALURU-575 001
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SANATHKUMAR SHETTY K., ADVOCATE)
Digitally
signed by
SUMA AND:
Location: M/S. HAJEE K. ABDUL
HIGH
COURT OF KHADAR BAWA AND SONS,
KARNATAKA A PARTNERSHIP FIRM,
P.B. NO.35, BAWA CHAMBERS,
GOODS SHED ROAD,
BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER,
ARIF BAWA,
S/O.MOHIDIN BAWA,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
H.D.31, HIS GRACE APARTMENTS,
MARTIN PAIS ROAD, HAT HILL,
MANGALURU-575 006
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. S. RAJASHEKAR , ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:43821
CRP No. 534 of 2018
THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 18 OF KARNATAKA SMALL
CAUSE COURTS ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
06.09.2018 PASSED IN S.C.NO.11/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE II
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM., MANGALURU D.K.
PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR VACANT POSSESSION AND
MESNE PROFITS.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner has challenged the judgment dated
06.09.2018 passed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge
& CJM, Mangaluru, Dakshina Kannada, in S.C.No.11/2013,
by which, the petitioner was ordered to quit and deliver
vacant possession of the plaint schedule premises within
three months from the date of the order.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall
henceforth be referred as per their respective rank held
before the Trial Court.
3. The petitioners were the defendants, while the
respondent was the plaintiff before the Trial Court.
NC: 2023:KHC:43821
4. A suit for ejectment was filed in
S.C.No.11/2013 before the Small Causes Court,
Mangaluru, contending that the suit property belonged to
the plaintiff which was let out to the defendants, on a
monthly rent of a sum of Rs.160/-. The plaintiff alleged
that the defendants had fallen in arrears of rent from
February, 2010 and onwards. Since the plaintiff claimed
that it was in need of the petition premises for its own use
and occupation, it got issued a notice dated 14.05.2013
terminating the tenancy of the defendants and called upon
the defendants to quit and deliver the vacant possession of
petition premises. Since the defendants failed to comply
with the demand made in the notice, proceedings were
initiated for eviction of the defendants.
5. The defendants contested the suit claiming that
they were carrying on the manufacture and sale of
umbrellas in the petition schedule premises. They also
contended that the petition premises measured less than
150 sq.ft. and the rent payable was Rs.160/- and
NC: 2023:KHC:43821
therefore the provisions of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999
were alone applicable and the proceedings before the
Small Cause Court could not have been initiated. They
further contended that the plaintiff had transferred a
larger portion of the land to a mosque for religious
purpose and therefore, the plaintiff had no subsisting
right, title or interest over the petition premises and
therefore not entitled to the relief sought for.
6. Based on these contentions, the Trial Court
framed the following points for consideration:
"1. Whether the plaintiff firm proves
that the defendants are their tenants over
the schedule premises on a monthly rent
of Rs.160/-?
2. Whether the plaintiff firm proves
that they requires the schedule premises
for their use and occupation and
defendants are liable to be surrendered the
vacant possession of the schedule
property?
NC: 2023:KHC:43821
3. Whether the court fees and
jurisdiction is correct?
4. What order or decree?"
7. The plaintiff was examined as PW.1 and Exs.P1
to P7 were marked. The defendant No.2 was examined as
DW.1, but he did not mark any documentary evidence.
8. Based on the oral and documentary evidence,
the Trial Court held that the plaintiff had proved that the
defendants were tenants under it. It also held that the
plaintiff had caused a notice of termination of tenancy on
14.05.2013 which was duly served on the defendants on
17.05.2013. Consequently, it held that there was a valid
termination of tenancy and since the defendants did not
quit and deliver vacant possession of the property, it held
that the plaintiff is entitled to evict the respondents.
Consequently, it allowed the petition and directed the
defendants to quit and deliver vacant possession of the
petition premises within three months.
NC: 2023:KHC:43821
9. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the
defendants have filed this revision petition under Section
18 of the Karnataka Small Cause Courts Act, 1964.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioners
contended that the Small Cause Courts could not have
gone into the questions that were raised by the defendants
in the written statement. He submitted that Small Cause
Courts is only entitled to consider a case of ejectment
simpliciter and not when questions regarding the title of
the plaintiff is urged. He contended that the petition
premises is less than 150 sq.ft., and rate of rent is
Rs.160/- per month and therefore, the defendants were
protected against eviction and the plaintiff was bound to
invoke the provisions of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999. He
further contended that the petition premises was used for
manufacturing activity, and it was incumbent upon the
plaintiff to issue six months prior notice of the termination
of the tenancy and that not having been done, there was
no valid termination of lease and consequently, the Trial
NC: 2023:KHC:43821
Court could not have exercised jurisdiction to direct the
defendants to quit and deliver the vacant possession.
11. Per contra, the learned counsel for the plaintiff
contended that there is no dispute regarding the title of
the plaintiff and the contention of the defendants that
some portion of the property was transferred to a mosque
for religious purposes is not proved. He contends that a
suit for ejectment has to be filed before the Small Cause
Court subject to the pecuniary limits contained in Section
8 of the Karnataka Small Cause Courts Act. He contends
that a mere denial of the title of the plaintiff is not
sufficient to non-suit the plaintiff, as that is a question of
fact that the defendants has to establish before the Trial
Court. He submitted that defendants did not produce any
documents to prove that the plaintiff had transferred the
suit property to a mosque for religious purposes. He
further contends that though the defendants claimed that
the petition premises was used for manufacturing activity,
except the oral evidence, no material evidence was placed
NC: 2023:KHC:43821
on record, in that regard. Therefore, the defendants were
not entitled to six months prior notice of termination of the
tenancy. He further contends that the premises measured
more than 1500 sq.ft. and the contention of the
defendants that the petition premises measured only 150
sq.ft. is without any basis and no evidence in that regard
is extracted from either PW.1 or proved by getting a
Commissioner to inspect the property. He therefore
contends that on all grounds, the defendants are not
entitled to challenge the impugned judgment passed by
the Trial Court.
12. I have considered the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the defendants and the learned
counsel for the plaintiff. I have also perused the records
of the Trial Court as well as the judgment of the Trial
Court.
13. The fact that the defendants were inducted into
the petition premises by the plaintiff is not seriously
disputed. Therefore, the equitable principle of law that
NC: 2023:KHC:43821
once a tenant always a tenant is applicable to the facts
and circumstances of this case. If the tenancy is admitted
and if an action is brought to evict such tenant, such
action shall be initiated either before the Small Cause
Courts under the Karnataka Rent Act, if the Act is
applicable and if the Karnataka Rent act is not applicable,
such, proceedings are to be initiated before the Karnataka
Small Cause Court. The jurisdiction of a Small Cause Court
to entertain an action to evict a tenant is contained in
Section 8 and Schedule (I) of the Karnataka Small Cause
Courts Act.
14. A perusal of the Schedule (I) of the Karnataka
Small Cause Courts Act, makes it clear that every suit for
ejectment, subject to a pecuniary jurisdiction of a Small
Cause Court has to be tried by the Small Cause Court only
and no other Court. In the case on hand, since the
ownership of the plaintiff is not much in dispute and since
the defendants have not established that the plaintiff had
transferred the petition property during the pendency of
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC:43821
the proceedings, it cannot be held that the Small Cause
Court was not entitled to decide the dispute, on the
ground that the plaintiff had lost title to the property. As a
matter of fact, no evidence is placed on record to indicate
that the plaintiff had relinquished its title in the petition
premises in favour of any person, therefore, he continued
to be the landlord of the petition premises and the
defendants continued to be tenant under the plaintiff.
15. In so far as the contention urged by the
petitioners that the petition premises measured less than
150 sq. ft. and therefore, the provisions of the Karnataka
Rent Act, 1999 is alone applicable, a perusal of the records
does not disclose that the defendants had taken any steps
to prove this contention. Except the self serving statement
of the defendants that the petition premises measured less
than 150 sq.ft., no steps were taken by the defendants to
get the property physically measured. On the contrary,
when a suggestion was put to PW.1, that the petition
premises measured less than 150 sq.ft. he stated that it
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC:43821
measured more than 1500 sq.ft. The cross-examination of
DW.1 indicates that the premises measured more than
150 sq.ft. and therefore, the provisions of the Karnataka
Rent Act, 1999 were clearly not applicable to the case.
Therefore even on this ground, the defendants were not
entitled to challenge the impugned judgment of the Trial
Court.
16. In so far as the last contention urged that the
plaintiff was bound to issue a six months prior notice of
termination of the tenancy, since the defendants had
undertaken manufacturing activity in the premises, this
too was not proved at the trial and no material evidence
was produced to establish that the defendants were
undertaking a manufacturing activity. Even otherwise,
there is no written lease between the plaintiff and
defendants and therefore, even if the defendants were
undertaking a manufacturing activity, it had to be
construed as a month to month tenancy and as the suit is
filed after the expiry of a month from the date of
- 12 -
NC: 2023:KHC:43821
termination of tenancy. Therefore, it cannot be held that
the suit was premature and consequently, all the
contentions urged by the petitioners/defendants do not
merit consideration in this revision petition.
17. Consequently, this petition lacks merit and is
dismissed.
18. The petitioners are granted six months time to
quit and deliver vacant possession of the petition
premises, subject to paying the arrears of rent, if any, and
continues to pay the rent as agreed upon, till vacating the
premises in question.
Sd/-
JUDGE
HJ
