The interpretation of the provisions of Section 8 read with Article 4 of the schedule to the Act and the scope and width of jurisdiction cannot be curtailed or whittled down by any other enactment, particularly by referring to the provisions of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 or the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999.

1. All these civil revision petitions are admitted for examination.

2. All these civil revision petitions under Section 18 of the Karnataka Small Cause Courts Act, 1964, (for short the Act) either by the landlords or the tenants, invariably the landlords figuring as plaintiffs in the Small Causes suits which were for ejectment of the person occupying the premises, recovery of which was sought for by the landlords, are revision petitions which arise for examination in the context of the tenants who have suffered eviction orders, contending that such ejectment suits were not maintainable in the light of the law as laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sarojamma v. K. M. Venkatesh, reported in ILR 2007 Kar 3309.

3. While disposing of the civil revision petition which had been placed before the Division Bench and arising in the context of the very question as to the maintainability of a suit for ejectment under the provisions of the Act, particularly, having regard to the provisions of Section 8 of the Act read with Article 4 of schedule to the Act, the Division Bench of this Court had an occasion to sum up the questions framed as under and answered the three questions in paragraph 34 of this judgment which reads as under :

Proposition No. 1 Can Small Cause Courts take cognizance of only such suits which are filed seeking ejectment of tenants of the premises to which the Karnataka Rent Act applies and not in respect of tenants who occupy the premises and whose tenancy has been determined or come to an end since in such case the remedy is only before the Civil Court?

Answer Affirmative

The Small Cause Courts can take cognizance only of such suits which are filed seeking ejectment of tenants of the premises to which Karnataka Rent Act applies and not in respect of the tenants/persons who occupy other premises to which the Act does not apply and whose tenancy has been determined or has come to an end either by efflux of time or by withdrawal of the same.

Proposition No. 2 - Can Small Cause Courts take cognizance of suits filed seeking ejectment and rent even in respect of the premises to which Karnataka Rent Act is not applicable, subject to there being no prayer for mesne profits, damages and/or compensation, provided the valuation of the same being within the pecuniary jurisdiction ?

Proposition No. 3 - Can Small Cause Courts take cognizance of suits filed seeking ejectment, rent, damages mesne profits etc. even in respect of the premises to which Karnataka Rent Act is not applicable, provided the valuation of the same being within the pecuniary jurisdiction.

Answer - Negative

In respect of the ejectment of the tenants in respect of the premises to which the Karnataka Rent Act does not apply, relief would have to be sought for by filing an appropriate suit before the City Civil Court which alone can entertain such suits even if bare ejectment or ejectment and arrears of rent is sought.

The Division Bench also had an occasion to clarify certain confusions said to be arising in the context of three different judgments of this Court.

4. Appearing for some of the revision petitioners, wherein the landlords figure as revision petitioners and who have lost the suit for ejectment either due to the application of the law as clarified in Sarojammas case or now face the prospect of their suits being dismissed in these revision petitions by applying the law as laid down in Sarojammas case, Sri. Surana, Sri. Suresh, Sri. Vighneshwar S. Shastri, Sri. Shamanna, learned counsel in CRP Nos. 254 of 2006, 664 of 2007, 713 of 2004, 461 of 2007 respectively, have nevertheless submitted before this Court that the confusion is not really removed, if at all the judgment of the Division Bench has only added to the confusion; that the view taken by the Division Bench is not sustainable on a proper understanding or interpretation of the provisions of Section 8 read with Article 4 of the Schedule to the Act; that the interpretation placed by