This is defendant’s appeal against the judgment and decree dated 13th December 2002 in O.S.No.15131/1999.

2. The parties will be referred to as arrayed before the trial Court.

3. Respondent - plaintiff sought for decree for delivery of actual vacant possession of schedule property and for damages at Rs.10,000/- per month.

4. Case of the plaintiff was that, he had filed H.R.C.No.10040/1996 before the Additional Small Causes Judge under Section 21(1)(h), (j) and (P) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for eviction of the defendant. However, the said petition was dismissed in view of the provisions of Section 31 of the Act and also in view of the decision of the Apex Court upholding the validity of Section 31, as the rent of the schedule property was more than Rs.500/- and it was let out for commercial purpose. It is also alleged that the tenancy of the defendant was terminated by legal notice dated 30th December 1998. The said legal notice was sent by RPAD and also certificate of posting and further by affixture. It is also alleged that, despite termination of the tenancy, the defendant had not vacated the suit schedule property. It is alleged that the cause of action accrued to the plaintiff to seek possession and also for damages.

5. Defendant resisted the suit by filing written statement interalia, denying the allegations made in the plaint and alleged that, there is no valid termination of tenancy and further alleged that, the plaintiff is not entitled for compensation.

6. The trial Court based on the pleadings, framed the following issues:

1. Whether plaintiff proves that the defendant has been his tenant in respect of suit schedule property No.30, M.F. Naronha Road, Russel Market, Square. Bangalore, on a monthly rental of Rs.600/.?

2. Whether the plaintiff has properly terminated the tenancy of the defendant?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the damages; if so, at what rate?

4. Whether plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs sought for?

5. What decree or order?

7. The trial Court on appreciation of the evidence held that, the defendant is the tenant of the suit schedule property on the monthly rent of Rs.600/- and the tenancy has been validly terminated and decreed the suit.

8. Learned Counsel appearing for the defendant submitted that, the suit is not maintainable before the City Civil Court, as the defendant does not cease to be a tenant. He relied on the provisions of Section 31 of the Act and submitted that, since the rent is more than Rs.500/- and premises being used for commercial purpose, Part- V of the Act is excluded and in respect of all other Parts, the Act is applicable. The defendant continues to be tenant even after the determination of a lease. If the defendant continues to be tenant, the suit for possession before the Civil Court on the basis of termination notice is not maintainable. He submitted that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction.

9. He also submitted that, the question of jurisdiction can be raised at any stage of the proceedings including in the execution proceedings. He further submitted that, the decree passed by the Court is without jurisdiction and is nullity in the eye of law.

10. In this regard, he relied on a decision of the Apex Court reported in AIR 1979 SC 1745 in the matter of V. DHANAPAL CHETTIAR Vs. YESODAI AMMAL and submitted that, even if the lease is determined by forfeiture under the Transfer of Property Act, the tenant continues to be a tenant and there cannot be any forfeiture of tenancy in the eye of law, the tenant becomes liable to be evicted and forfeiture comes into play only if the tenant has incurred the liability to be evicted under the Act and not otherwise. He submitted that, Section 3 clause (r) of the Act defines ‘tenant’, which includes the tenant, who has suffered an order of eviction. He further submitted, that, even after the termination of the tenancy, defendant continues to be a tenant and as such, Section 8 of t