( 1 ) THIS revision petition by the defendant/tenant in the suit in S. C. No. 161/2003 is directed against the judgment and decree dtd. 30. 10. 2003 passed by the Court of Small Causes, Bangalore directing the petitioner to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the suit premises to the respondent/landlord within three months.

( 2 ) I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties, perused the impugned judgment and the record of the trial court.

( 3 ) THE relevant facts leading to filing of this revision petition are as follows: the respondent/plaintiff had leased the suit premises to the petitioner/defendant on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,600/- for a period of two years and one month as per Ex. P-1 the lease deed dated 10. 3. 1997. Accordingly, the lease got determined by efflux of time on 10. 4. 1997. A notice of termination of lease dated 12. 8. 99 was also issued as per Ex. P2. Therefore, the respondent/plaintiff filed a suit in O. S. No. 9263/99 before the City Civil Court, Bangalore for possession of the suit property and for damages. The City Civil Court, in view of the judgment of this Court in RAMESH P. SETH vs. KRISHNAMURTHY (ILR 2002 KAR 565) ordered for return of the plaint by its order dated 9. 1. 2003 for presentation to the Court of Small Causes, Bangalore. On such presentation of the plaint to the Court of Small Cause, the suit came to be renumbered as S. C. No. 161/2003. The petitioner/defendant resisted the suit interalia on the ground that the suit was not maintainable in view of the provisions of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999. The plaintiff for examined himself as PW1 and produced Exs. P1 to P8. The defendant examined her husband/gpa Holder as DW1. The trail court formulated the following points for determination:1) Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff is maintainable? 2) Whether the plaintiff is the owner of the schedule premises and the defendant was the tenant, under the plaintiff on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,600-00? 3) Whether the termination of the tenancy is proper? 4) Whether the court fee paid is proper? 5) What order?it answered all the points in the affirmative and decreed the suit for possession but declined to consider the claim for damages for want of jurisdiction.

( 4 ) THE sole contention urged by Sri Pradeep Naik, learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Court of Small Causes had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit filed for possession and damages. His contention is that the suit as brought was traible only by the Regular Civil Court and not by the Court of Small Causes. As stated above, the plaint was originally presented before the Regular Civil Court in the year 1999 but it ordered the plaint to be presented before the Court of Small Causes in view of the judgment of this Court in Ramesh P. Seths case referred to above. I may also add that this contention re jurisdiction was not urged before the trial court i. e. the Court of Small Causes. Be that as it may, It is relevant to state here itself that the trail court had declined to consider the relief of damages on the ground that it had no jurisdiction to consider the same but has only granted the decree for possession. Learned Counsel for the petitioner in support of his submission that the Court of Small Causes had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, has relied on the judgments of this Court in BANGALORE PRINTING AND PUBLISHING CO. LTD. , VS. SOUKAR T. PREMNATH (ILR 2004 KAR 98), M/s KAHNDELWAL BROTHERS CO. LTD. Vs. G. S. NISAR AHMED (ILR 2004 KAR 2864 ). He also referred to the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in ANTHMANATHAWAMI DEVASTHANAM Vs. K. GOPALA SWAMI (AIR 1965 SC 338 ).

( 5 ) IN view of the above, the only question that falls for determination in this revision petition is as to whether on the facts of the case, the Court of Small Causes had the jurisdiction to entertain the suit and to pass the decree for possession/ejectment which is impugned herein?

( 6 ) TO examine the aforesaid contention, it is relevant t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document