Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
V SRISHANANDA
Rahina Tabassum, W/O Waseem Ahmed – Appellant
Versus
C.R.Lokesh, S/O Late C N Revanna – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. jurisdiction challenge in eviction suits. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments on pecuniary jurisdiction. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's analysis of jurisdiction and damages. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 18 , 19) |
| 4. application of law not aligned with facts. (Para 17) |
| 5. conclusion on revision petitions dismissed. (Para 20) |
ORDER :
V SRISHANANDA, J.
Heard Sri Mohammed Tahir, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri M.D. Raghunath, learned counsel for the common respondent, in both the revision petitions.
2. These two revision petitions are filed by the defendants in S.C.No.15143/2024 and S.C.No. 15144/2024, respectively, pending on the file of the XVII Additional Small Causes Judge and ACMM, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru, challenging the dismissal of the applications filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘CPC’). Both suits were filed for ejectment and mesne profits.
3. The facts in the nutshell, which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petitions, are as under:
3(i) Defendants having entered appearance in the aforesaid suits, filed applications under Order VII Rule 11 CPC contending that as per Section 8
Claims within Small Causes Court jurisdiction deemed maintainable; key distinctions between mesne profits and damages established for adjudication during trial.
The distinction between mesne profits and lawful profits is crucial for jurisdiction under the Small Cause Court Act.
The court held that claims involving arrears of rent and mesne profits constitute a commercial dispute under the Commercial Courts Act, necessitating judicial consideration and trial.
Mesne profits can only be claimed from the date of the eviction decree, not from the date of filing the suit, as possession remains lawful until the decree is passed.
Mesne profits are payable from the date of lease termination, and the Appellate Court can extend payment periods and correct errors in lower court decisions.
A claim for future mesne profits is a distinct cause of action and can be validly pursued even if not initially included in a decree for possession, negating previous res judicata arguments.
Civil courts retain jurisdiction in tenancy disputes, despite Small Causes Court provisions, allowing broader claims beyond ejectment and possession.
Point of Law - By amendment in the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 the limit of pecuniary jurisdiction of small causes court was increased from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.1 Lakh.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the procedure under Order 20 Rule 12 CPC for the passing of a decree for possession and mesne profits should be followed only when a suit is f....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
