Mere denial of jural relationship of landlord and tenant by the defendant in his written statement cannot be a ground to hold that the Court of Small Causes lacks jurisdiction. The Court of Small Causes has jurisdiction to entertain a suit for ejectment if the relationship of landlord and tenant is established.

JUDGMENT :

K.S. HEMALEKHA, J.

1. The present petition by the plaintiff assailing the order dated 01.07.2022 in S.C. No. 36/2012 on the file of the II Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hubballi, whereby the application I.A. No. I filed by the respondent No. 3-defendant No. 3 under Section 21 read with 151 of CPC was allowed and directed the office to return the plaint to the plaintiff to present the same before the competent Civil Court.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed suit for ejectment directing the defendants to handover vacant possession of the suit property, arrears of rent and for mesne profits.

3. It is stated by the plaintiff that the plaintiff-Trust is a public religious and charitable Trust and owner of the suit schedule property. The defendants are the lessee and the tenancy commences from first of each calendar month and that defendant No. 2 has executed an agreement dated 02.08.1994. Since the defendants did not vacate the suit schedule property and are in arrears of rent, the quit notice was issued to dependent Nos. 1 and 2 terminating the tenancy rights and defendant Nos. 3 to 5 claim themselves to be the sub-tenants of the suit schedule property.

4. The defendant No. 3 filed his written statement contending that the said Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and contended that the permanent tenant Ramprasad Chinnuprasad Dube was the permanent tenant and had sold his lease-hold rights by way of a registered deed in favour of Ambasa Annasa Habib, who in turn has leased the property to Anavasu Baddi the father of defendant No. 3 and certain portions to the father of defendant Nos. 4 and 5 and contended that they are the tenants under Ambasa Annasa Habib.

5. Defendant No. 3 contended that the eviction proceedings have been initiated against these defendants in HRC No. 51/1967, HRC No. 201/1974 and Misc. No. 21/1979 and other proceedings which came to be dismissed. As such, it is contended that the suit is hit by the principles of res judicata and the plaintiffs have lost rights over the property under section 27 of the Limitation Act and sought for dismissal of the suit.

6. During the pendency of the said suit defendant No. 3 filed application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for return of plaint and also application under Section 21 read with 151 CPC was filed contending that the Small Causes Court does not have jurisdiction to try the suit. The trial Court after hearing the parties by its order dated 6.7.2015 held that the applications have to be heard along with the main as against this order defendant No. 3 approached this Court by filing this Writ Petition No. 109633-34/2015 and the said writ petitions came to be disposed of on 10.03.2017 directing the trial Court to consider the question of jurisdiction as preliminary issue and pass appropriate orders in that regard.

7. The trial Court by its order dated 11.11.2021 rejected the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC with cost of Rs. 500/-. However, the application filed by defendant No3 under Section 21 read with 151 CPC was not disposed of by the trial Court. Defendant No. 3 again approached this Court in W.P. No. 10093/2022 and this Court after hearing the parties directed the trial Court to pass orders on the issue of jurisdiction. Puruant to which the trial Court having heard the learned counsel for the parties allowed the application filed by defendant No. 3 under Section 21 and Section 151 CPC.

8. The trial court by its impugned order has held that the Small Causes Court has no jurisdiction to try the said suit and directed the plaint to be returned to be presented before the jurisdictional Civil Court by its order dated 1.7.2022. Aggrieved by which the present petition by the plaintiff.

9. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record.

10. Learned counsel, Sri S.A. Sondur appearing for the petitioner would contend that the application filed by defendan