Civil courts retain jurisdiction in tenancy disputes, despite Small Causes Court provisions, allowing broader claims beyond ejectment and possession.

JUDGMENT :

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI)

This appeal arises out of the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court in O.S.No.5/2009 dated 21.03.2013 and R.A.No.19/2013 dated 20.08.2018 whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff came to be decreed and confirmed.

2. The factual matrix of the case that is relevant for the purpose of this appeal is as below:

2.1. The respondents, who are the plaintiffs before the Trial Court, filed the suit seeking the possession of the suit schedule property by ejectment of the defendant from the suit schedule property. The plaintiff is a Trust under the name and style ‘Khasagi Devi Ahalyabai Holkar Charities Trust’ situated at Indore and some of its properties are situated at Gokarna. One of the properties of the plaintiff i.e., ‘Holkarawada Chathra’ is situated at a Rathaveedi of Gokarna, measuring about 7 guntas, and it is very near to the Mahabaleshwara Temple. The defendant was a lessee of one of the shop premises in the property belonging to the plaintiff and he was trading in puja articles and idols, on a monthly rent of Rs. 65/-. The defendant with an evil intention, stopped making the payment of the rents to the plaintiff-trust and therefore, a notice came to be issued on 19.11.2004 stating that the defendant was due in payment of rents from February-2000 to October-2004 for 58 months amounting to Rs. 3,770/-. The said notice was received by the defendant on 22.11.2004 but the defendant neither responded to the notice nor made the payment of the arrears of the rent. Therefore, a notice of termination of the tenancy was issued to the defendant on 04.07.2005, which was received by him on 09.07.2005. In spite of the termination of the tenancy and calling upon him to vacate and hand over the vacant premises, he failed to do so. Since there was some action by the Panchayath to widen the road and removal of the encroachment, the plaintiff-Trust with the apprehension that part or whole of the shop premises may also be demolished or the site where the shops were situated will be acquired by the government, decided to wait for some time. Ultimately, another notice was issued to the defendant on 01.11.2008 and even after receipt of the said notice on 04.11.2008, he failed to hand over the vacant possession. However, a false reply was sent by the defendant to the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff being in need of the suit schedule property, filed a suit against the defendant seeking the following reliefs:

“i) That the Court be pleased to pass a decree directing the defendant to hand over possession of the 'schedule shop premises’, to the Trust or to its authorised person.

ii) To pass a decree for the amounts, due for the period as mentioned in the notice dated 19-11- 2004 and also for the balance of amount due from the defendant as demanded in the notice issued on 4^th July 2005.

iii) To pass decree for ascertainment of mean profits accrued on the property during the period prior to the institution of the suit or directing an enquiry form the date of termination of tenancy i.e. from the month of august 2005; till the date of filing of the suit and further the Court be pleased to order for ascertainment of mesne profits from the date of suit until delivery of the possession of the 'schedule shop premises' to the plaintiff Trust. As provided under order XX Rule 12 of C.P.Code.

Cost of notice issued, amount totaling to Rs 1000/- and cost of the suit be also awarded together with such other reliefs as found fit to the Hon'ble Co