2010 Supreme(Kar) 1105

High Court of Karnataka
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MAJULA CHELLUR, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.V. SHYLENDRA KUMAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.N. KESHAVANARAYANA
Abdul Wajid & Others
Versus
A S Onkarappa & Others
Case No : CRP No.541 of 2007 C/w. CRP Nos. 312 of 2007, 254 of 2006, 318 of 2006, 346 of 2006, 438 of 2006, 492 of 2006, 664 of 2007, 431 of 2007, 2 of 2004, 430 of 2007, 546 of 2007, 713 of 2004, 1547 of 2004, 461 of 2007
Decided on : 27-12-2010

Headnote:KARNATAKA SMALL CAUSES COURTS ACT, 1964 - Jurisdiction of Small Cause Courts to take cognizance of the suits for Ejectment in respect of the premises to which the provisions of Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 are not applicable: [Manjula Chellur & D.V.Shylenra Kumar & K.N.Keshavanarayan, JJ] Conflicting decisions rendered by Single Judge and the Divisions Bench - Reference to Full Bench - Decision of the Division Bench in "SMT. SAROJAMMA vs K.M.VENKATESH reported in ILR 2007 Kar 3309" - Interpretation on Clause (b) of Article 4 of Schedule to Karnataka Small Causes Court Act - Held, The Courts of Small Causes 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 Karnataka Rent Act is not applicable. In view of this, it is held 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. - The opinion of the Division Bench that Court of Small Causes can take cognizance only of such suits which are filed seeking Ejectment of tenants of the premises to which KR Act applies runs contrary to the provisions of said Act as such it does not lay down correct law. In respect of the premises to which KR Act is applicable, only the ’Court’ specified under Clause (c) of Section 3 of KR Act alone is competent to make order for recovery of such premises on the landlord proving any one or more grounds enumerated therein. - In the context of jurisdiction of Small Causes Court, a suit for recovery of possession of immovable property does not include a suit for Ejectment as such, a suit for Ejectment is distinct and different form suit for recovery of possession of immovable property or for recovery of any interest in such immovable property. - In the context of jurisdiction of Court of Small Causes to take cognizance of a suit for ejectment, recovery of mesne profits would not amount to either recovery of an interest in the immovable property or determination or enforcement of any other right or interest in the immovable property, and the Court of Small Causes is competent to consider prayer for mesne profits against non-statutory tenant after termination/determination of lease subject to its pecuniary jurisdiction. The contrary view expressed by the Division Bench in this regard does not lay down correct law. - Further held, Courts of Small Causes 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, subject to its pecuniary limits, in respect of the premises to which KR Act is not applicable. The interpretation placed by the Division Bench is SAROJAMMA’S CASE, on Clause (b) of Article 4 of Schedule to KSCC Act does not lay down the correct law. - The suits for Ejectment with or without prayer for rent, mesne profits or damages, pending before the Civil Courts, either upon re-presentation of plaints pursuant to decision in "SAROJAMMA’S CASE" or presented afresh after SAROJAMMA’S CASE, the value of the subject matter of which is within the pecuniary limits of the Courts of Small Causes, shall be transferred to the Courts of Small Causes, which on receipt of such records shall proceed from the stage at which they were pending before Civil Court and dispose them of in accordance with law.

       KARNATAKA SMALL CAUSES COURTS ACT, 1964 - Section 8 and Articles 10 & 28: [Manjula Chellur & D.V. Shylenra Kumar & K.N. Keshavanarayan,JJ] Jurisdiction of Small Causes Court - Held, While functioning as a Court under the provisions of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, the Court of Small Causes is a designated Tribunal and exercises its jurisdiction in terms of the provisions of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 and this jurisdiction of Court of Small Causes as a special Tribunal under the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 should not be confused with the jurisdiction which the Court of Small Causes has independently under the provisions of the KSCC Act. The Court of Small Causes is also a Court, conferred with jurisdiction to try disputes of civil nature but with a limited jurisdiction, in the sense, within the limits of pecuniary jurisdiction and within the limits of a specified nature of suits apart form those excluded from its purview in terms of Section 8 of the KSCC Act, is a Court created for the purpose of convenience and expediency as it becomes obvious on a perusal of the provisions of Act relating to its jurisdiction, that the Court of Small Causes is enable to try only suits of simple nature, where complications are minimal and where disputes regarding title are not involved and such suits are also tried in an expedient manner and attains finality quickly by avoidance of an appeal provision. Further, While the exclusion of the types of suits from the purview of the Court of Small Causes is to be found in the Schedule to the KSCC Act in terms of Section 8 of the KSCC Act, here again, there are exceptions to such exclusions, in the sense that, even amongst such suits which are excepted from the cognizance of Court of Small Causes, a few varieties of such suits are nevertheless brought back within the jurisdiction of the Court of Small Causes subject to certain conditions being fulfilled. For interpreting and understanding the provisions of the Karnataka Small Causes Courts Act, 1964 and to find out the jurisdiction of a Court of Small Causes, it is only the provisions of the KSCC Act which has to be looked into and therefore to link the question of the jurisdiction of the Small Causes Courts Act to the provisions of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 is a basic fallacy which has resulted in the view expressed by the Division Bench of High Court in Sarojamma’s case. No doubt under Article 4 a suit for recovery of an interest in immovable property and under Article 10 a suit for determination of any other right to or interest in immovable property are excepted from the jurisdiction of a Court of Small Causes. However, under Article 28 since a suit for mesne profits has been carved out as an exception and thereby making such suit for recovery of mesne profits cognizable by Courts of Small Causes, even if it is accepted that recovery of mesne profits amounts to recovery of an interest in immovable property, in the context of jurisdiction of Courts of Small Causes it does not amount to recovery of an interest in the immovable property.

       KARNATAKA SMALL CAUSES COURTS ACT, 1964 - Schedule, Article 4(b): [Manjula Chellur & D.V.Shylenra Kumar & K.N.Keshavanarayan,JJ] Jurisdiction of Small Cause Courts to take cognizance of the suits for ejectment in respect of the premises to which the provisions of Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 are not applicable - Interpretation on Clause (b) of Article 4 of Schedule to Karnataka Small Causes Court Act - Reference to Full Bench in view of conflicting decisions rendered by the Single Judge and the Divisions Bench - Decision of the Division Bench in Smt. Sarojamma vs K.M.Venkatesh reported in ILR 2007 Kar 3309 - Held, The Courts of Small Causes 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 Karnataka Rent Act is not applicable. In view of this, it is held 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. The opinion of the Division Bench that Court of Small Causes can take cognizance only of such suits which are filed seeking ejectment of tenants of the premises to which Karnataka Rent Act applies runs contrary to the provisions of said Act as such it does not lay down correct law. In respect of the premises to which Karnataka Rent Act is applicable, only the ’Court’ specified under Clause (c) of Section 3 of Karnataka Rent Act alone is competent to make order for recovery of such premises on the landlord proving any one or more grounds enumerated therein. In the context of jurisdiction of Small Causes Court, a suit for recovery of possession of immovable property does not include a suit for ejectment as such, a suit for ejectment is distinct and different form suit for recovery of possession of immovable property or for recovery of any interest in such immovable property. In the context of jurisdiction of Court of Small Causes to take cognizance of a suit for ejectment, recovery of mesne profits would not amount to either recovery of an interest in the immovable property or determination or enforcement of any other right or interest in the immovable property, and the Court of Small Causes is competent to consider prayer for mesne profits against non-statutory tenant after termination/determination of lease subject to its pecuniary jurisdiction. The contrary view expressed by the Division Bench in this regard does not lay down correct law. Further, Courts of Small Causes 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, subject to its pecuniary limits, in respect of the premises to which Karnataka Rent Act is not applicable. The interpretation placed by the Division Bench is Sarojamma’s case, on Clause (b) of Article 4 of Schedule to KSCC Act does not lay down the correct law. The suits for ejectment with or without prayer for rent, mesne profits or damages, pending before the Civil Courts, either upon re-presentation of plaints pursuant to decision in Sarojamma’s case or presented afresh after Sarojamma’s case, the value of the subject matter of which is within the pecuniary limits of the Courts of Small Causes, shall be transferred to the Courts of Small Causes, which on receipt of such records shall proceed from the stage at which they were pending before Civil Court and dispose them of in accordance with law.