Karnataka High Court
M/S Sreenivas Enterprises vs Shri. B V Narayan on 27 November, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:42739
CRP No. 611 of 2023
C/W CRP NO. 630 of 2023,
CRP NO. 633 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 611 OF 2023 (IO)
C/W
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 630 OF 2023 (IO),
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 633 OF 2023 (IO)
IN CRP No.611/2023:
BETWEEN:
1. M/S SREENIVAS ENTERPRISES
REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING PARTNERS:
SRI.K.R RAVISHANKAR AND
SMT. ANITHA RAVISHANKAR,
VITTOBA TEMPLE STREET,
DODDABALLAPURA,
DODDABALLAPURA TALUK,
BENGALURU DISTRICT - 561203.
2. SRI. K.R. RAVISHANKAR
Digitally
signed by S/O K.C. RUDRE GOWDA,
SUMA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
Location: MANAGING PARTNER,
HIGH
COURT OF M/S SREENIVASA ENTERPRISES,
KARNATAKA C/O URVASHI THEATRE,
NO. K-40, H. SIDDAIAH ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560027.
3. SMT. ANITHA RAVISHANKAR
W/O K.R. RAVISHANKAR,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
M/S SREENIVASA ENTERPRISES,
C/O URVASHI THEATRE,
NO.K-40, H. SIDDAIAH ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560027.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. T. SESHAGIRI RAO, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:42739
CRP No. 611 of 2023
C/W CRP NO. 630 of 2023,
CRP NO. 633 of 2023
AND:
1. M/S BASETTY TRUST
REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.15,
13TH MAIN, JAGRUTHI COLONY,
PUTTENAHALLI, J.P.NAGAR,
7TH PHASE,
BENGALURU - 560078.
REPRESENTED BY:
2. THE PRESIDENT
SRI. B.N.RAM MOHAN,
S/O LATE B.K. NARAYAN,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO. 15, 13TH MAIN,
JAGRUTHI COLONY, PUTTENAHALLI,
J.P.NAGAR VII PHASE,
BENGALURU - 560078.
3. THE SECRETARY
SRI. B.V. BADRINATH,
S/O LATE B.R. VENKATESH,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO. 512,
ASHWATHAKATTE ROAD,
V.V.PURAM,
BENGALURU - 560011.
TRUSTEES:
4. SRI. B.V. CHANDRASEKAR
S/O LATE B.R. VENKATARAMANA SETTY,
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO. 100/24,
10TH D MAIN ROAD, V.V.PURAM,
BENGALURU - 560011.
5. SRI.S.K. KISHORE
S/O LATE B.S. KRISHNAMURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.33, 2ND FLOOR,
OPPOSTIE GOVERNMENT,
MATERNITY HOSPITAL,
SAJJAN RAO ROAD, V.V.PURAM,
BENGALURU - 560 004.
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:42739
CRP No. 611 of 2023
C/W CRP NO. 630 of 2023,
CRP NO. 633 of 2023
6. SMT. B.N. RAJESHWARI
W/O V.B. KRISHNAIAH CHETTY,
D/O LATE B.R. NAGARAJAN,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO. 593,
21ST MAIN ROAD, 4TH T BLOCK,
JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560041.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. P.P. HEGDE, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. VISWANATHA SETTY V, ADVOCATE
FOR R1, R2, R3, R5 AND R6)
THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC, AGAINST
ORDER DATED 25.09.2023 ON IA NO.45 IN O.S.NO.3840/2018 ON
THE FILE OF THE XXII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-7), BENGALURU REJECTING THE IA NO.45
FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 10 OF CPC TO RETURN THE PLAINT
FOR WANT FOR JURISDICTION.
IN CRP NO.630/2023
BETWEEN:
1. M/S SREENIVAS ENTERPRISES
REPRESENTED BY
THE MANAGING PARTNERS:
SRI.K.R RAVISHANKAR AND
SMT. ANITHA RAVISHANKAR,
VITTOBA TEMPLE STREET,
DODDABALLAPURA,
DODDABALLAPURA TALUK,
BENGALURU DISTRICT - 561203.
2. SRI. K.R. RAVISHANKAR
S/O K.C. RUDRE GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
MANAGING PARTNER,
M/S SREENIVASA ENTERPRISES,
C/O URVASHI THEATRE,
NO. K-40, H. SIDDAIAH ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560027.
3. SMT. ANITHA RAVISHANKAR
W/O K.R. RAVISHANKAR,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
-4-
NC: 2023:KHC:42739
CRP No. 611 of 2023
C/W CRP NO. 630 of 2023,
CRP NO. 633 of 2023
M/S SREENIVASA ENTERPRISES,
C/O URVASHI THEATRE,
NO.K-40, H. SIDDAIAH ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560027.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. T SESHAGIRI RAO AND SRI. SUNIL S. RAO, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. SHRI.B.V.NARAYAN
S/O LATE.B.V.VENKATARAMANA SETTY
AGED ABOUT 86 YEARS
R/AT NO.100/24, 10TH 'D' MAIN ROAD
1ST BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 011.
2. SRI.B.V. CHANDRASEKAR
S/O LATE B.R. VENKATARAMANA SETTY,
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO. 100/24,
10TH D MAIN ROAD, V.V.PURAM,
BENGALURU - 560011.
SINCE DEAD BY LR'S
2(a) SMT. JALAJA SHEKAR
W/O. LATE B.V.CHANDRASHEKAR
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
2(b) SRI. HEMANTH CHANDRASHEKAR
S/O. LATE B.V.CHANDRASHEKAR
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
2(c) SRI. ANUP BANGALORE CHANDRASHEKAR
S/O. LATE B.V.CHANDRASHEKAR
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
ALL ARE R/AT. NO.100/24
10TH 'D' MAIN ROAD
1ST BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BANGALORE 560 011.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. P.P. HEDGE, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. VISHWANATH
SETTY V, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 AND R2(a) TO R2(c)
-5-
NC: 2023:KHC:42739
CRP No. 611 of 2023
C/W CRP NO. 630 of 2023,
CRP NO. 633 of 2023
THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC, AGAINST
THE ORDER DATED 25.09.2023 PASSED ON I.A.NO.34 IN
O.S.NO.3842/2018 ON FILE OF XXII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-7), BANGALORE REJECTING THE IA
NO.34 FOR RETURN OF PLAINT FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION.
IN CRP NO.633/2023:
BETWEEN:
1. M/S SREENIVAS ENTERPRISES
REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING PARTNERS:
SRI.K.R RAVISHANKAR AND
SMT. ANITHA RAVISHANKAR,
VITTOBA TEMPLE STREET,
DODDABALLAPURA,
DODDABALLAPURA TALUK,
BENGALURU DISTRICT - 561203.
2. SRI. K.R. RAVISHANKAR
S/O K.C. RUDRE GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
MANAGING PARTNER,
M/S SREENIVASA ENTERPRISES,
C/O URVASHI THEATRE,
NO. K-40, H. SIDDAIAH ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560027.
3. SMT. ANITHA RAVISHANKAR
W/O K.R. RAVISHANKAR,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
M/S SREENIVASA ENTERPRISES,
C/O URVASHI THEATRE,
NO.K-40, H. SIDDAIAH ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560027.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. T. SESHAGIRI RAO, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHRI. B K RAJENDRA PRASAD
S/O LATE B. KRISHNA SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
R/AT NO. 31, 11TH 'A' CROSS,
1ST FLOOR, SWIMMING POOL EXTN,
SUDHINDRA NAGAR, MALLESWARAM,
BENGALURU - 560 003.
-6-
NC: 2023:KHC:42739
CRP No. 611 of 2023
C/W CRP NO. 630 of 2023,
CRP NO. 633 of 2023
2. SRI B.N. RAMA MOHAN,
S/O LATE B K NARAYAN,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO. 15, 13TH MAIN,
JAGRUTHI COLONY, PUTTENAHALLI,
J.P. NAGAR VII PHASE,
BENGALURU - 560 078.
3. SRI. B.G.SHANKAR,
S/O LATE B.K.GOPAL,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO. 2069,
EAST END "B" MAIN, 39TH CROSS,
JAYANAGAR IX BLOCK,
BENGALURU - 560 069.
4. SRI. B.M.SRINATH,
S/O LATE B.K.MANJUNATH,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO. 128/7,
7TH MAIN ROAD, LAKKSANDRA EXTN.,
WILSON GARDEN,
BENGALURU - 560 030.
5. SRI B.G. MAHESH
S/O LATE B.K. GOVINDARAJ,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO. 69,
EAST PARK ROAD,
14TH CROSS, MALLESWARAM,
BENGLAURU - 560 003.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. P.P. HEGDE, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. V.VISHWANATH SETTY, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC, AGAINST
THE ORDER DATED 25.09.2023 PASSED ON I.A.NO.34 IN
O.S.NO.3841/2018 ON FILE OF XXII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE REJECTING THE IA NO.34 FILED
UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 10 OF CPC FOR RETURN OF PLAINT.
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-7-
NC: 2023:KHC:42739
CRP No. 611 of 2023
C/W CRP NO. 630 of 2023,
CRP NO. 633 of 2023
ORDER
1. CRP No.611/2023 is filed challenging the order
dated 25.09.2023 passed by the XXII Additional City Civil and
Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City in O.S No.3840/2018, by which,
an application (IA No.45) filed by the petitioners under Order
VII Rule 10 of CPC was rejected .
2. CRP No.630/2023 is filed challenging the order
dated 25.09.2023 passed by the XXII Additional City Civil and
Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City in O.S No.3842/2018, by which,
an application (IA No.34) filed under Order VII Rule 10 of CPC
was rejected.
3. CRP No.633/2023 is filed challenging the order
dated 25.09.2023 passed by the XXII Additional City Civil and
Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City in O.S No.3841/2018, by which,
an application (IA No.34) filed under Order VII Rule of 10 CPC
was rejected.
4. In all these petitions, the respondents were
plaintiffs, while the petitioners were the defendants. They shall
be referred to accordingly in this order to maintain clarity.
NC: 2023:KHC:42739
C/W CRP NO. 630 of 2023,
CRP NO. 633 of 2023
5. The suits in O.S Nos.3840/2018, 3841/2018 and
3842/2018 were filed for ejectment of the
tenants/defendants/petitioners from the commercial premises
bearing No.K-40, Siddaiah Road, Bengaluru - 560 027. It was
claimed in all the suits that the suit properties belonged to the
plaintiffs and that the portions of the same were leased out to
the defendants in all the three suits.
6. The following reliefs were sought for in all the three
suits:
WHEREFORE, the plaintiffs above named humbly pray
that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass a
Judgment and Decree against the defendants:
(a) Directing the defendants to vacate and handover the
vacant possession of the schedule property to the
plaintiffs and other owners of the remaining portion of
Urvashi Theatre complex building who have filed two
separate suits along with the above suit, as-is-where-is
basis along with the constructed building thereon, failure
adhere to the same on part of the defendants, this
Hon'ble Court may be pleased to vacate the defendants
from the schedule property and to handover possession of
the same to the plaintiffs as-is-where-is basis, through
Court machinery of this Hon'ble Court;
NC: 2023:KHC:42739
C/W CRP NO. 630 of 2023,
CRP NO. 633 of 2023
(b) Direct the defendants to pay damages of Rs
25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty five lakh only) per month
from 24.04.2018 till the date of handing over possession
of the schedule property to the plaintiffs as-is-where-is
basis as per the terms of registered lease deed;
(c) To pass such other relief/s as this Hon'ble Court
deems fit in the circumstances;
(d) Direct the defendants to pay the cost of the suit;
WHEREFORE, the plaintiffs above named humbly pray
that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass a
Judgment and Decree against the defendants:
(a) Directing the defendants to vacate and handover the
vacant possession of the schedule property to the
plaintiffs and other owners of the remaining portion of
Urvashi Theatre complex building who have filed two
separate suits along with the above suit, as-is-where-is
basis along with the constructed building thereon. failure
to adhere to the same on part of the defendants, this
Hon'ble Court may be pleased to vacate the defendants
from the schedule property and to handover possession of
the same to the plaintiffs as-is-where-is basis, through
Court machinery of this Hon'ble Court:
(b) Direct the defendants to pay damages of Rs
12,50,000/- (Rupees Twelve lakh and fifty thousand only)
per month from 24.04.2018 till the date of handing over
possession of the schedule property to the plaintiffs as-
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC:42739
C/W CRP NO. 630 of 2023,
CRP NO. 633 of 2023
is-where-is basis as per the terms of registered lease
deed:
(c) To pass such other relief's as this Hon'ble Court deems
fit in the circumstances:
(d) Direct the defendants to pay the cost of the suit;
WHEREFORE, the plaintiffs above named humbly pray
that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass a
Judgment and that this against the defendants;
(a) Directing the defendants to vacate and handover the
vacant possession of the schedule property to the
plaintiffs and other owners of the remaining portion of
Urvashi Theatre complex building who have filed two
separate suits along with the above suit, as-is-where-is
basis along with the constructed building thereon. failure
to adhere to the same on part of the defendants. this
Hon'ble Court may be pleased to vacate the defendants
from the schedule property and to handover possession of
the same to the plaintiffs as-is-where-is basis, through
Court machinery of this Hon'ble Court;
(b) Direct the defendants to pay damages of Rs
12,50,000/- (Rupees Twelve lakh and fifty thousand only)
per month from 24.04.2018 till the date of handing over
possession of the schedule property to the plaintiffs as-
is-where-is basis as per the terms of registered lease
deed;
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC:42739
C/W CRP NO. 630 of 2023,
CRP NO. 633 of 2023
(c) To pass such other relief's as this Hon'ble Court deems
fit in the circumstances:
(d) Direct the defendants to pay the cost of the suit;"
7. When the suits were set down for arguments, the
petitioners/defendants filed an applications under Order VII
Rule 10 of CPC contending that the rent payable by the
defendants admittedly was Rs.1,375/- per month in all the
cases and therefore, the City Civil Court had no jurisdiction in
view of Section 8 of the Karnataka Small Causes Court Act,
1964 (for short 'the Act of 1964'). Therefore, they prayed the
Court to return the plaint. These applications were objected by
the plaintiffs who contended that in addition to ejectment, the
plaintiffs had also sought for recovery of damages at the rate of
Rs.25,00,000/- per month, Rs.12,50,000/- per month and
Rs.12,50,000/- per month respectively and therefore, the same
was outside the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Small Causes
Court.
8. The Trial Court after considering the contention
urged, rejected the applications in terms of the order dated
25.09.2023 on the ground that the issues framed in the suit
- 12 -
NC: 2023:KHC:42739
C/W CRP NO. 630 of 2023,
CRP NO. 633 of 2023
had to be decided by it. It noticed that the suit filed by the
defendants in O.S No.3842/2018 was ordered to be clubbed at
the instance of the defendants along with other suits and
therefore, it was that Court alone which had jurisdiction to
decide the suits. Therefore, it held that defendants are
estopped from denying that the Court had no pecuniary
jurisdiction to try the suits that too at a belated stage of the
proceedings. Being aggrieved by the said orders, the tenants/
defendants in the aforesaid suit have filed these civil revision
petitions.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants
in all these petitions invited the attention of the Court to
Section 8 of the Act of 1964 and contended that Small Causes
Court established in the Metropolitan City of Bengaluru is
entitled to exercise jurisdiction concerning matters which are
provided in Schedule I of the Act of 1964. As a result, he
submits that all suits for ejectment by a landlord have to be
dealt with by the Small Causes Court only and no other Courts.
He also invited attention of this Court to Section 9 of the Act of
1964 and contended that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is
- 13 -
NC: 2023:KHC:42739
C/W CRP NO. 630 of 2023,
CRP NO. 633 of 2023
expressly ousted and therefore, the Civil Court has no
jurisdiction to try the suit. He also submitted a suit for mesne
profit can also to be tried by the Small Causes Court as
provided under Entry 28 of Schedule I of the Act of 1964. In
this regard, he relied upon the judgment of the Full Bench of
this Court in the case of Abdul Wajid v. A.S.Onkarappa
reported in ILR 2011 KAR 229 and contended that this Court
categorically held that all suits for ejectment in respect of the
premises to which the provisions of the Karnataka Rent Act,
1999 are not applicable are to be dealt with by the Small
Causes Court only. He also invited the attention of the Court to
paragraph No.93 and contended that it is the rent payable for
one year prior to the presentation of the plaint which is a
marker to determine the jurisdiction and any suit for recovery
of mesne profit also has to be tried by the Court of Small
Causes. He referred to paragraph No.98 which reads as
follows:
"98. Therefore, we hold that Courts of Small Clauses
have jurisdiction to take cognizance of not only a bare suit for
Ejectment but also a suit for Ejectment with a prayer for
recovery of mesne profits or damages, in respect of the
premises to which KR Act is not applicable. In View of this,
- 14 -
NC: 2023:KHC:42739
C/W CRP NO. 630 of 2023,
CRP NO. 633 of 2023
we hold that the interpretation placed by the Division Bench in
Sarojamma's case, on Clause (b) of Article 4 of Schedule to
KSCC Act does not lay down the correct law."
10. The learned counsel for petitioners relied upon the
judgment in the case of Harshad Chiman Lal Modi v. DLF
Universal Ltd and another reported in (2005) 7 SCC 791
and contended that the parties cannot vest jurisdiction and
though objections regarding territorial and pecuniary
jurisdiction had to be taken at the earliest possible opportunity
where the Court has no jurisdiction, the same could be assailed
at any stage of the proceedings. He referred to the judgment
of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Ramesh
P.Seth v. M.S.Krishna Murthy and Another reported in ILR
2002 KAR 565 and contended that this Court held in
paragraph No.6 which reads as follows:
"6. Therefore, Section 31 of the K.R.C. Act
exempts the operation of Part V dealing with control of
eviction of tenants and the obligation of the landlords to
a non-residential building, the monthly rent of which
exceeds Rs. 500.00. The said section does not exclude
the application of other parts and provisions of the
K.R.C. Act to the lease in respect of non-residential
building the monthly rent of which exceeds Rs. 500.00.
In view of the definition of tenant, contained in Section
- 15 -
NC: 2023:KHC:42739
C/W CRP NO. 630 of 2023,
CRP NO. 633 of 2023
3(r) of the K.R.C. Act, a person continuing in possession
after termination of the tenancy in his favour, also would
be a tenant. Even after the tenancy of a tenant of a non-
residential building the monthly rent of which exceeds
Rs. 500.00 terminated, he continues to be a tenant and
he is liable to pay the agreed rent to the landlord even
after the termination. His position after the termination
of the tenancy would not become unlawful and his
liability to pay rent does not cease. With the termination
of contractual tenancy, statutory tenancy commences
under the K.R.C. Act, Therefore, the question of such a
tenant paying damages for use and occupation or
compensation for use and occupation of the leased
premises after the termination of the tenancy or paying
mesne profits does not arise, because of the application
of the K.R.C. Act. All the other rights and obligations and
the liabilities continue to operate under the K.R.C. Act."
11. He also referred to another judgment of Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court in W.P No.65/2013 dated 10.01.2013 and
contended that following the judgment of Full Bench of this
Court, this Court had held that a suit for ejectment had to be
tried by the Small Causes Court only.
12. Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel representing
the plaintiffs contended that the defendants had filed O.S
No.3858/2016 for extending the lease of the premises in
- 16 -
NC: 2023:KHC:42739
C/W CRP NO. 630 of 2023,
CRP NO. 633 of 2023
question. In the said suit, an application was filed by the
petitioners/defendants for clubbing O.S No.3858/2016 along
with suit in O.S No.3840/2018 and other suits. The application
filed by the defendants to club all the suits was rejected by the
Trial Court and the defendants filed W.P Nos.27007/2019,
27009/2019, 27010/2019, 27011/2019, 27012/2019 and
27013/2019 before this Court and prayed that all the suits be
clubbed as it involved the same subject matter. This Court in
terms of the order dated 03.07.2019 allowed the petitions and
directed all the suits to be clubbed and a common trial to be
held. He therefore contended that the defendants invited an
order from this Court that all the suits have to be tried
together. If that be so, he contends that the defendants are
now estopped from contending that the suits filed for ejectment
have to be tried by the Small Causes Court. He contends that
the issues that are framed by the Court in O.S No.3858/2016
cannot be adjudicated upon by the Small Causes Court. He
next contends that the suits are filed not only for ejectment but
also for recovery of damages of a sum of Rs.25,00,000/-,
Rs.12,50,000/-, Rs.12,50,000/- respectively and therefore, it is
outside the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court.
- 17 -
NC: 2023:KHC:42739
C/W CRP NO. 630 of 2023,
CRP NO. 633 of 2023
He contends that the pecuniary limit of the Small Causes Court
is incorporated under Section 8 of the Act of 1964 which reads
as following:
"8. Cognizance of suits by Courts of Small
Causes.--
(1) A Court of Small Causes shall not take cognizance of
the suits specified in the Schedule as suits excepted from
the cognizance of a Court of Small Causes.
(2) Subject to the exception specified in the schedule and
to the provisions of any law for the time being in force, all
suits of a civil nature of which the value does not "one
lakh rupees" in other places, shall be cognizable by a
court of small causes."
Provided that the State Government, in consultation with
the High court, may by notification, direct that all suits of
which the value does not exceed [twenty five thousand
rupees] shall be cognizable by a Court of Small Caused
mentioned in the notification."
13. He therefore contends that since the present suits
are filed for recovery of damages of sums exceeding
Rs.2,00,000/-, the Small Causes Court has no jurisdiction to
decide the suits. He contends that indisputably a suit for
recovery of damages, which does not exceed the pecuniary
- 18 -
NC: 2023:KHC:42739
C/W CRP NO. 630 of 2023,
CRP NO. 633 of 2023
limits of the Small Causes Court can be entertained by the
Small Causes Court but if it spills over the sum of
Rs.2,00,000/-, the Small Causes Court has no jurisdiction. The
learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of Full Bench of
this Court in the case of Abdul Wajid v. A.S.Onkarappa
reported in ILR 2011 KAR 229 and contended that jurisdiction
being a threshold test, has to be examined with respect to the
reliefs sought for in the suit and not in vaccum. He contended
that the jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court as founded by
the Full Bench is limited to examine whether there exists a
relationship of landlord and tenant and if the answer is in the
affirmative then the question, whether the relationship is
properly terminated in accordance with law would be
considered. He contended that a perusal of the plaint filed by
the defendants in O.S No.3858/2016 and the written statement
filed in O.S No.3840/2018 and others discloses that the
defendants denied the title of the plaintiffs in the suit property
and therefore the suit is more or less for the recovery of
possession based on title and hence it is the Civil Court which
has jurisdiction.
- 19 -
NC: 2023:KHC:42739
C/W CRP NO. 630 of 2023,
CRP NO. 633 of 2023
14. I have considered the submissions of learned
counsel for petitioners and learned counsel for respondents in
all these petitions.
15. In these petitions, we are only concerned with the
jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court to entertain the suits
filed by the plaintiffs/respondents herein.
16. The suits in O.S Nos.3840/2018, 3841/2018 and
3842/2018 were filed for the reliefs stated supra.
17. The valuation slip indicates that the suits were
valued under Section 41 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits
Valuation Act, 1958 claiming that the defendants were the
tenants occupying portions of the commercial property and that
the rent payable was a sum of Rs.1,375/- per month.
Therefore, even as per the understanding of the plaintiffs, the
suits were for relief of ejectment of the tenants from suit
schedule property. Now coming to the question whether the
Small Causes Court or the Civil Court has jurisdiction to try the
suit or not, Section 8 of the Act of 1964 is relevant and the
same is extracted below:
- 20 -
NC: 2023:KHC:42739
C/W CRP NO. 630 of 2023,
CRP NO. 633 of 2023
"8. Cognizance of suits by Courts of Small
Causes.--
(1) A Court of Small Causes shall not take cognizance of
the suits specified in the Schedule as suits excepted from
the cognizance of a Court of Small Causes.
(2) Subject to the exception specified in the schedule
and to the provisions of any law for the time being in
force, all suits of a civil nature of which the value does
not "one lakh rupees" in other places, shall be cognizable
by a court of small causes.
Provided that the State Government, in consultation with
the High court, may by notification, direct that all suits of
which the value does not exceed [twenty five thousand
rupees] shall be cognizable by a Court of Small Caused
mentioned in the notification."
18. A perusal of the Schedule I of the Act of 1964
discloses that every suit for ejectment by a landlord against the
tenant has to be tried by the Small Causes Court subject to the
limits of its pecuniary jurisdiction namely a sum of
Rs.2,00,000/-. Likewise, the Small Causes Court is also
entitled to entertain a suit for mesne profit which is again
subject to the limits of its pecuniary jurisdiction. In the case on
hand, the suits were undoubtedly filed for ejectment of the
petitioners/defendants from the suit properties and agreed rent
- 21 -
NC: 2023:KHC:42739
C/W CRP NO. 630 of 2023,
CRP NO. 633 of 2023
is a sum of Rs.1,375/- per month in all the cases. Ordinarily,
the suit must have been tried by the Small Causes Court but
for the fact that the plaintiffs had also sought for relief of
recovery of damages of Rs.25,00,000/-, Rs.12,50,000/- and
Rs.12,50,000/- respectively. When a suit is filed for recovery
of damages for a sum of Rs.25,00,000/-, Rs.12,50,000/- and
Rs.12,50,000/- respectively it was outside the jurisdiction of
the Small Causes Court and therefore, such a suit could not
have been filed before the Small Causes Court as it could not
have granted a decree of recovery of damages of a sum of
Rs.2,00,000/-, Rs.12,50,000/- and Rs.12,50,000/- respectively.
This apart, the defendants who were aware of the fact that they
were tenants occupying portions of the suit schedule properties
had filed O.S No.3858/2016 for extension of lease, could not
have slept over the fact that suits in O.S Nos.3840/2018,
3841/2018 and 3842/2018 were filed before the City Civil
Court, Bengaluru. They did not raise any objection from the
date the suits were filed till the date the cases were taken up
for final arguments. On the contrary, they desired that all the
suits filed by them as well the plaintiffs in O.S Nos.3840/2018,
3841/2018 and 3842/2018 be clubbed and heard together and
- 22 -
NC: 2023:KHC:42739
C/W CRP NO. 630 of 2023,
CRP NO. 633 of 2023
though the Trial Court rejected the applications initially, the
same was challenged by the defendants/petitioners herein
before this Court in various writ petitions and they invited an
order in terms of which, all suits were ordered to be tried
together. Therefore, the defendants cannot now at the fag end
of the proceedings contend that the Civil Court had no
jurisdiction to entertain the suits filed by the plaintiffs for
ejectment of defendants in the suit property.
19. In that view of the matter, there is no error
apparent on the face of the record warranting interference by
this Court. Consequently, all these petitions are dismissed.
All contentions are left open to be considered by the Trial
Court.
Sd/-
JUDGE
UN
