CHANDRAKANTHARAJ, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a sad case of the plaintiff who feels aggrieved by the order dated 3rd of february, 1983 made by the Court of the IV additional Small Causes, Bangalore City, on i A. NO. VIII in S. C. No. 7778 of 1980.

( 2 ) IA. NO. VIII was filed by second defendant under Order VI Rule 11 C. P. C. asking the Court to strike her out as a party as there was no cause of action disclosed in the plaint against her relatable to the relief prayed.

( 3 ) THE revision petitioner filed his objections inter alia contending that one ramu - husband of the first defendant was the tenant and that the second defendant was also residing in the suit schedule premises and she had at sonu point of time offered to pay the rent and in fact sent the rent by money order.

( 4 ) BUT, as noticed by the learned Small causes Judge, there is variance in the pleadings between the facts pleaded in the plaint on the one hand and the objections filed to IA. No. VIII. The Court below proceeded to dismiss 1a. No. VIII on the ground that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action against the second defendant.

( 5 ) THE only allegation made in the plaint concerning second defendant is to be found in para 2 which reads as follows:"from 18-6-1973 paid the rent, water and electric charges upto the end of 17-12-1974 and has sublet the schedule premises without the knowledge or the consent of the plaintiff to the second defendant for a higher rent and thereby committed breach of contract etc. , and the second defendant was in actual possession and enjoyment of the schedule premises from 18-12-1974 to 3-7-1977 and has paid to the Authority concerned only electric charges upto June, 1977. "

( 6 ) BUT, there is a prayer for a decree against both defendants 1 and 2. Defendant-1 as already noticed is none other than the widow,of the tenant- H. Ramu since deceased. The allegation clearly indicates that there is no privity of contract between the plaintiff and the second defendant notwithstanding the fact that she has paid the rent. If on the original pleading the relationship is only that of a sub-tenant without knowledge and consent then the plaintiff cannot claim any relief against the second defendant. Proper thing would have been for the plaintiff to amend the plaint, which he has not done. This, unfortunately, is the result of the parties themselves feeling quite competent to handle their legal affairs and denying themselves the privilege of being represented by trained Counsel. In that circumstance, this Court becomes helpless.

( 7 ) STRANGELY, after the order was passed on 3rd of February, 1983, it appears that the main suit itself in S. CNo. 7778 of 1980, which had been originally filed as O. S. No. 3242 of 1977 came to be dismissed on 26th of february, 1983. It is approximately 23 days after the inter-locutory order was passed. This revision is directed against that interlocutory order.

( 8 ) NORMAL rule is that interlocutory orders do not survive the suit. The suit is disposed of. Then what the petitioner should have challenged was the order made in the main suit, which he has not done, though a certified copy of the same is produced.

( 9 ) IN this Court also the petitioner is in person. He really does not know the difficulties the Courts have in decreeing a suit or granting other interlocutory reliefs de hors the substantive and procedural laws. He has urged before this Court that second defendant Kanaka C. Rao was really not a sub-tenant, but more a concubine of late ramu and therefore she resided in the said place. No such pleading was ever placed before the Court below, nor, is there any evidence recorded to that effect in the course of the trial before the lower Court.

( 10 ) THE Court in its revisional jurisdiction under Section 18 of the Small causes Courts Act should not permit such submissions to be made even by persons who are trained to be in the legal profession.

( 11 ) THE entire case of the petitioner is hopelessly misconceived

Click Here to Read the rest of this document