The Civil Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the ejectment suit due to the rent being below the threshold under the Karnataka Rent Act, making the decree a nullity.

JUDGMENT :

SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM, J.

1. The captioned appeal is filed by the appellant-defendant assailing the judgment and decree dated 23.11.2011 passed in O.S.No.1532/2006 on the file of the XXV Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City (CCH No.23).

2. For the sake of brevity, the parties are referred as they are ranked before the Trial Court.

3. The facts leading to the case are as under:

The plaintiff instituted a suit for ejectment in O.S.No.1532/2006 contending that the suit schedule premises had been let out to the defendant by the plaintiff’s daughter, B.V. Padmini, on a monthly rent of Rs.3,000/-. The plaintiff traced his title as the father of the lessor and placing reliance on the orders passed in P & SC No.42/2004 issued a quit notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and thereafter, filed the suit seeking delivery of vacant possession along with arrears of rent.

4. The defendant entered appearance and contested the suit, disputing both the jural relationship of landlord and tenant as well as the title of the plaintiff. The parties were relegated to trial. Upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court decreed the suit, holding that the plaintiff had succeeded in establishing that the defendant was a tenant under him in respect of the suit schedule premises on a monthly rent of Rs.3,000/- and that the plaintiff was entitled to seek eviction pursuant to the order passed by the Probate Court in P & SC No.42/2004. The Trial Court further recorded a categorical finding that the tenancy had been validly terminated by issuance of quit notice dated 10.10.2005. While answering issue No.3, the Trial Court also held that the defendant was a chronic defaulter and was legally liable to pay arrears of rent amounting to Rs.93,000/- for the period from 01.03.2003 to 24.10.2005.

5. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, the defendant has preferred the present appeal fundamentally assailing the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. It is contended that even if the plaint averments are accepted in their entirety, the admitted agreed rent being Rs.3,000/- per month, the suit was not maintainable before the Regular Civil Court in view of the statutory bar under Section 2(e) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, which excludes the jurisdiction of Civil Courts in respect of the premises where the agreed rent does not exceed Rs.3,500/- per month. It is, therefore, urged that the Trial Court inherently lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit and consequently, the decree passed is a nullity. In support of this contention, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the authoritative judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kiran Singh and Others vs. Chaman Paswan and Others , (1954) 1 SCC 710 to contend that a decree passed by a Court lacking inherent jurisdiction is void and can be challenged even at the appellate stage.

6. There is no representation on behalf of the respondent-plaintiff.

7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and upon perusal of the record, the following points arise for consideration:

(i) Whether the ejectment suit instituted by the plaintiff was not maintainable before the Civil Court, having regard to the admitted agreed rent of Rs.3,000/- per month and whether the suit was barred under Section 2(e) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 rendering the decree passed by the Trial Court a nullity?

(ii) Whether, in the absence of a specific plea regarding maintainability in the written statement, the defendant is entitled to raise the issue of lack of jurisdiction for the first time at the appellate stage and seek invalidation of the