- (1.)The controversy which led to this reference for the opinion of the full bench relates to the jurisdiction of Courts of Small Causes constituted under Karnataka Small Cause Courts Act 1964 (for short KSCC Act) to take cognizance of the suits for ejectment by the land lord against the tenants in respect of the premises to which the provisions of Karnataka Rent Act 1999 (for short KR Act) are not applicable, and the lease of such premises having either been determined by efflux of time limited thereby or having been determined by a notice in accordance with law or the permission to occupy the premises having been withdrawn.
(2.)This controversy arose on account of the conflicting decisions rendered by Learned Single Judges in three different judgments and another learned single judge expressing the view that the interpretation placed by the Division Bench in Smt. Sarojamma v. K.M. Venkatesh, 2007 ILR(Kar) 3309 on Article 4 of Schedule to KSCC Act and the declaration of law that;
(1) the Court of Small Causes can take cognizance of such suits which are filed seeking ejectment of tenants of the premises to which KR Act applies and not in respect of the tenants/persons who occupy other premises to which the KR Act does not apply and whose tenancy has either been determined or has come to an end by efflux of time or withdrawal of the same and

(2) in respect of the ejectment of tenants of the premises to which the KR Act does not apply, relief would have to be sought for by filing an appropriate suit before the City Civil Court which alone can entertain such suits even if bare ejectment or ejectment and arrears of rent is sought, requires to be reconsidered.

Though the order of reference does not specify the point/s on which the opinion of the full bench is sought, after going through the orders passed by the Learned Single Judge as well as by the Division Bench and after hearing the Learned Counsels appearing on both sides, we find that the opinion of the Full Bench is sought on the following points:

(i) Whether the Court of Small Causes constituted under KSCC Act has jurisdiction to take cognizance of suit filed for ejectment by the land lord against the tenant in respect of the premises to which KR Act does not apply, and the lease of which has either come to an end by efflux of time limited thereby or has been duly determined by issuing notice in accordance with law or the permission to occupy has been withdrawn?.

(ii) Whether the decision of the division bench in Sarojamma's case (supra) lays down correct law?

(3.)The legislative backdrop:
The provisions of Karnataka Rent Control Act 1961 (for short KRC Act) which was in force up to 31/12/2001 were applicable to all categories of the tenanted premises whether residential, commercial or premises used for non-residential purposes. The said Act among other things provided for the control of rents and evictions. It had provided protection to the tenants from eviction. Section 21 contained in part V. of the said Act dealt with eviction of tenants. Jurisdiction of the Courts to pass any order or decree for possession in respect of any premises as defined under the Act, in favour of the land lord against the tenant had been barred as per Sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Act notwithstanding anything contained in any other law in force or any contract. However proviso to Sub-section (1) empowered the Court constituted under the Act to make an order for the recovery of possession of premises on any one or more of the grounds enumerated in Clauses (a) to (p). Thus only upon the land lord establishing one or more of those grounds, the Court could have passed an order of eviction against the tenant and direct him to deliver vacant possession of the tenanted premises. Though the said Act was extended to whole of the State, Section 2(3) restricted the application of part V. only to the areas specified in schedule III, namely areas within the limits of cities under the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act 1976 and the areas within a radius of three kilometers from the limits of the said cities. Sub-Sec (7) exempted application of the entire Act to the premises belonging to the State and Central Governments as also premises owned by certain local bodies, statutory bodies, and Co-operative societies etc. Section 31 which was also in Part V. of the Act exempted application of Part V. to the non-residential building the monthly rent of which exceeded five hundred rupees or the annual rental value of which exceeded six thousand rupees. Initially, the erstwhile Courts of Munsiff in the state were constituted as the 'Court' under the Act. However, later in respect of Bangalore City, the Court of the then Civil judge and still later Court of Small Causes till the Act was repealed with effect from 31-12-2001, had been constituted as the 'Court' under the Act. Thus in respect of the premises situated in the areas to which Part V. was not applicable; in respect of nonresidential buildings to which Part V. was not applicable as per Section 3; and in respect of the premises to which the Act itself was not applicable, the tenants had no protection with regard to eviction, and the land lords of such premises were entitled to seek ejectment of the tenant and possession of the premises upon determination of tenancy in accordance with the general law of the land namely Transfer of Properties Act, by filing a suit before the Civil Court as provided by Code of Civil Procedure, or in accordance with the procedure laid down under any special law made in that regard.