JUDGMENT

Dama Seshadri Naidu, J. - Heard finally at the admission stage by the parties'' consent.

Facts:

2. The petitioner is the defendant and the respondents are the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs filed Civil Suit No. 9 of 2016, to have the petitioner evicted. In that suit, the petitioner, as the defendant, applied under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC to have the plaint rejected. The petitioner has maintained that the plaint reveals no cause of action, so it should be dismissed under Order 7 Rule 11 (a) of the CPC.

3. The trial Court, through its order dated 16th September 2017, dismissed the application. Aggrieved the petitioner filed this Writ Petition.

Respondents'' Objection:

4. Before the petitioner''s counsel advanced his arguments the respondents'' counsel has raised a preliminary objection: the Writ Petition under Article 227 is not maintainable; it ought to have been, if ever, under Section 115 of CPC.

5. The respondents'' counsel has taken me through the statutory provisions and also the practice of this Court. Then, he has contended that the only recourse available for the petitioner is to invoke Section 115 of the CPC.

The Petitioner''s Answer:

6. On the contrary, the petitioner''s counsel has strenuously contended that this Writ Petition presents exceptional circumstances: mixed adjudication, as he calls it. To elaborate, the learned counsel submits that the application under Exh. 27 is a composite one. Therefore, the trial Court framed three issues. Had it been an exclusive application Order 7 Rule 11, the petitioner would have had a remedy under Section 115 of CPC, but not under the circumstances this case presents.

7. The Petitioner''s counsel has also submitted that the petitioner only wanted a partial rejection of the plaint; that is, the plaint rejection is confined only to bona fide requirements, the rest remaining untouched. According to him, viewed from any perspective, as it is composite adjudication, the recourse let open for the petitioner is to invoke the Court''s supervisory jurisdiction under Order 227 of the Constitution of India.

The Amicus Curiae''s View:

8. Given the judicial cleavage on the issue, I requested Shri Kaustubh Dubey, the learned advocate, to assist the Court. In his submissions, Shri Dubey has brought out a new angle to the question of jurisdiction. According to him, the revision lies to the Division Bench of the Small Cause Court. To support his contention, he has drawn my attention to Bhartiben Shah v. Smt. Gracy Thomas,2012 2 AllMR 9(FB) .

9. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents, besides the learned amicus curiae.

Discussion:

10. Peculiar as the facts may seem, the landlord first filed Civil Suit No. 319 of 2002 for eviction. He filed it on two grounds: unauthorised construction and bona fide requirement. The trial Court dismissed the suit. Aggrieved, the landlord filed Appeal No. 648 of 2007. In that appeal, the landlord applied for amendment and secured it. It seems, in the light of the amendment and other factors, the appellate Court set aside the trial Court''s judgement and remanded the matter.

11. Instead of pursuing the remanded suit, the landlord withdrew it. Then, he filed a fresh suit: Civil Suit No. 9 of 2006. The landlord claims that the previous suit does not deter him because he pleaded in the present suit a different cause of action. In the second suit, the defendant applied under order 7, Rule 11 of CPC, requiring the trial Court to dismiss the suit, as the tenant puts it, for lack of cause of action. The trial Court refused.

12. Had the tenant''s application been allowed, that would have resulted in the summary dismissal of the suit, requiring the landlord to file an appeal. But the tenant''s application was dismissed, so it was his turn to assail the order, for the suit survived the scare of summary dismissal. Thus, he has filed the revision before this Court. Now, it was the landlord''s turn to object; he, as the Respon