Skip to content


Doddannavar Bros. Vs. Malathibai - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy;Civil
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Case NumberC.R.P. No. 2266 of 1978
Judge
Reported inILR1985KAR3025
ActsKarnataka Rent Control Act 1961 - Sections 1(2); Karnataka Rent Control (Amendment) Act, 1983; Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976; Karnataka Small Cause Courts Act, 1964 - Sections 8
AppellantDoddannavar Bros.
RespondentMalathibai
Appellant AdvocateUdaya Holla, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateN.A. Mandgi, Adv. for Respondent-1, ;H. Thipperudrappa, Adv. for Respondent-2
Excerpt:
karnataka rent control act, 1961 (karnataka act no. 22 of 1961) as amended by amendment act, 1983 (no. 17 of 1983) - section 1(2) -- act applies to areas included by amendment act deemed to have come into force from 31-12-1982 -- suit for possession before small causes court not within jurisdiction.;suit filed in small causes court for possession, after withdrawal of hrc case filed earlier, on the ground rent control act was inapplicable to the area in the absence of notification issued by state government. defendants resisted the suit on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction, denial of title and relationship of landlord and tenant etc. trial court held it had jurisdiction to try the suit. in revision :;when the rent control act is made applicable to the areas within the limits of cities..........hr.c. no, 219/1975 in the court of the munsiff, belgaum, on the ground that the provisions of the rent control act applied to the property in question. the property came to be included subsequently in the municipal limits. in view of the decision of this court in balawant shamarao deshpande-v.- sadashiv haripant kulkarni and others, 1975 (1) klj 386 to the effect that the rent control act was not applicable to the extended area of the municipality in the absence of a notification issued by the state government, the plaintiff withdrew that suit on 23-11-1976 with permission to file a suit. hence, the suit for permission.2. the defendants resisted the suit on the following grounds :-the small causes court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit of the present nature. the purchase of.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Kulkarni, J.

1. The plaintiff (Respondent-1 in this revision) filed a suit for recovery of possession of the suit property containing a residential house and an open site bearing No. 27/A out of S. No. 24/1A, measuring East to West 140 feet and South to North 102 feet. According to her, she purchased the said property for Rs. 25,000/- from one Teragundi According to her, the first defendant is a registered firm; defendant-2 is one of the partners of the said firm. Thedefendants are occupying the suit premises on a monthly rental of Rs. 35/-. The defendants' tenancy has beenterminated by a notice. The plaintiff and her family members are residing in a rented house. So, she requires the petition premises for her own use. The plaintiff had filed HR.C. No, 219/1975 in the Court of the Munsiff, Belgaum, on the ground that the provisions of the Rent Control Act applied to the property in question. The property came to be included subsequently in the Municipal limits. In view of the decision of this Court in Balawant Shamarao Deshpande-v.- Sadashiv Haripant Kulkarni and Others, 1975 (1) KLJ 386 to the effect that the Rent Control Act was not applicable to the extended area of the Municipality in the absence of a Notification issued by the State Government, the plaintiff withdrew that suit on 23-11-1976 with permission to file a suit. Hence, the suit for permission.

2. The defendants resisted the suit on the following grounds :-

The Small Causes Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit of the present nature. The purchase of theagricultural land by the plaintiff violates the provisions of the Land Reforms Act. The purchase of the suit property by the plaintiff is denied. The plaintiff's title to the area in question is denied. There is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant. The Court fee paid is not proper. The provisions of the House Rent Control Act would apply to the case.

3. The Trial Court came to the conclusion that the area where the suit property is situate, was not brought within the ambit of the Rent Control Act, by a subsequentNotification of the Government. According to it, the Rent Control Act will not apply to those areas which have beensubsequently brought into the limits of Belgaum Municipality,Thus, it held that the Small Causes Court has got the jurisdiction to try the suit and the Court fee paid was pro-per. It is no doubt true that in Dattaram N. Anvekar-v.-Shankar L. Parulukat, ILR (Karnataka) 1979 (2) 1880 (FB) the Full Bench of this Court held that if any new area is added by virtue of a Notification issued under the provisions of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964, to any village, municipal area or notified area mentioned in Schedule II of the Rent Control Act, another Notification making provisions of the Rent Control Act applicable to the included area must also be issued again by the Government. It was held in the said case that in the absence of a Notification, the provisions of the Rent Control Act will not apply to the area which has been freshly included in the Municipal limits.

4. The Karnataka Rent Control (Amendment) Act, 1983, has amended Schedule II. Now the amended Schedule II speaks as areas within the limits of Cities under the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976, and the area within a radius of three kilo metres from the limits of the said cities. On account of the said amendment, the principle laid down in the said Dattaram's case would not have application to the facts of this case. The principle laid down in the said Dattaram's case is rendered in-effective and in-applicable on account of the said amendment. It has been laid down in Nandlal and Others-v.- Motilal, : [1978]1SCR238 that Central Provinces and Berar Letting of House and Rent Control Order, 1949 was made applicable to all the Municipalities in the Central Provinces and Berar and the States integrated with the Central Provinces and Berar and that the are of Tiroda was declared to be a Municipality by a Notification dated June 12, 1956, and that the provisions of the said Act applied to the area of Tiroda though it was declared as Municipality by a subsequent Notification.when the Rent Control Act is made applicable to the areas within the limits of cities under the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976, and to the area within a radius of three Kilo metres from the limits of the said cities and when Belgaum City is covered by the provisions of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976, and when the locality in which the suit property is situate, has been admittedly included within the limits of Belgaum city by a Notification the provisions of the Rent Control Act would apply to the suit premises. Therefore, the view of the Small Causes Court that it has got jurisdiction cannot be sustained at all. The said Karnataka Rent Control (Amendment) Act 1983, as per Section 1(2), shall be deemed to have come into force from 31-12-1982. Thus apart from the controversy that was raised on account of the Full Bench and Division Bench decisions, Small Causes Court has no jurisdiction at all to try this suit in view of the Karnataka Rent Control (Amendment) Act, 1983 which shall be deemed to have come into force from 31-12-1982.

5. Further the defendants have raised a contention that the plaintiff has no title to the area in question. They do not admit the sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiff. They have also raised a contention that the purchase of the agricultural land by the plaintiff is in violation of the Land Reforms Act and thus also the Civil Court or the Small Causes Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit. Whenever a question of title is involved or is in dispute in a Small Causes suit, the jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court stands ousted. The lower Court has not looked into this matter at all. Further when a contention is raised that thejurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred on account of the said circumstances and that the area in question is anagricultural land, the Court ought to have applied its mind also to this aspect of the matter. In view of the conclusions arrived at by me above, the Small Causes Court has no jurisdiction at all to try this suit.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //