IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.428 OF 2013 Between:
Sri.N.Murali S/o N.Narasimha Murthy, Aged about 36 years, R/at No.18th Ward, Gori Bagilu, Devanahalli Taluk, Bangalore Rural District-562110.
…Petitioner (By.Sri.B.Sharath Kumar, Advocate) And:
Town Municipal Council, Devanahalli Town, Bangalore Rural District-562110.
Represented by its Chief Officer. ...Respondent This CRP is filed under Section 115 of CPC, against the order dated 29.08.2013 passed in O.S.No.442/2006 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC at Devanahalli, dismissing the I.A.No.V filed under Order 7 Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC.
This CRP coming on for hearing, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R This Revision Petition is directed to against the impugned judgment and order dated 29.08.2013 passed in O.S.No.442/2006 by the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC at Devanahalli rejecting the application-I.A.No.V filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC for rejection of the plaint.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent-Town Municipal Council, Devanahalli instituted a suit bearing O.S.No.442/2006 against the petitioner/defendant herein for the following reliefs:
Wherefore, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass a judgment and decree in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant for recovery of sum of Rs.64,156/- along with Court cost and correct interest at contractual rate of 9% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realization and for costs and such other relief’s as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and grant under the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and enquiry and Law.
3. The plaint is produced at Annexure-D along with present revision petition. A perusal of the plaint averments would show, it is the specific contention of the respondent-Town Municipal Council that the petitioner- defendant was a tenant under the Town Municipal Council and that there were arrears of rent of 64,156/- due from the petitioner to the respondent which was sought to be recovered by way of the suit in the Court below.
4. The Court below having ordered notice of the suit to the petitioner/defendant, he entered appearance before the Court below. Thereafter, he filed an application- I.A.No.V under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of Code of Civil Procedure (‘CPC’, for short) for rejection of the plaint interalia contending that the plaint did not disclose the cause of action as contemplated under order 7 Rule 11(a) of CPC and that the suit was barred under Section 16 of the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1974 (for short, ‘Act’). In that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was ousted by virtue of said Section 16 of the Act. Consequently, the Civil Court did not have jurisdiction or authority of law to entertain the suit which was barred under the said provisions. The respondent-Town Municipal Council filed an objection to the said application and sought for dismissal of the said I.A.No.V filed by the petitioner. By the impugned order, the Court below dismissed I.A.No.V filed by the petitioner. Hence, this revision petition.
5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner invited my attention to the provisions contained section 7 of the Act which reads as under:
7. Power to recover rent or damages in respect of public premises as arrears of land revenue.-
1) Where any person is in arrears of rent payable to the State Government or a local authority or a corporate authority in respect of any public premises, the competent officer may, by order, require that person to pay the same within such time and in such installments as may be specified in the order.
2) Where any person is, or has at any time been, in unauthorized occupation of any pubic premises, the competent officer may, having regard to such principles of assessment of damages as may be prescribed, assess the damages on account of the use and occupation of such premises and may, by order, require that person to pay the damages within such time and in such installments as may be specified in the order.
3) No order under sub-section (1) or sub- section (2) shall be made against any person until after the issue of a notice in writing to the person calling upon him to show cause within such time as may be specified in the notice why such order should not be made, and until his objections, if any, and any evidence he may produce in support of the same, have been considered by the competent officer.
6. He also drew my attention to Section 16 of the Act which ousted the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in respect of Public premises and that since the petitioner was due in arrears of rent in a sum of Rs.64,156/- to the respondent, the suit had been filed by the respondent against the petitioner for recovery of the said sum and for other reliefs.
7. it was also contended that having regard to the provisions contained in Section 16 of the Act which oust the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in respect of a public premises and consequently, the suit was not maintainable and barred by the provisions contained in Section 7 and 16 of the said Act, 1974.
8. The order sheet maintained in the Revision Petition would indicate that the respondent having been served and remained unrepresented.
9. I have given my anxious consideration to the submission made on behalf of the petitioner and have perused the materials on record in particular the plaint as well as provisions of the Act.
10. There is no gainsaying the fact that the purpose of the adjudication of the order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, it is permissible only to look into the plaint averments without adding or subtracting anything to the same. With this background, if the plaint averments in the suit filed by the respondent are perused, it is specifically averred on behalf of the respondent that the petitioner was a tenant under the respondent in respect of public premises and that the suit was filed for recovery of arrears of rent as provided under Section 7 of the Act. Interestingly, Section 7 of Act is of wide amplitude and covers claims not only for recovery of rent but also for damages as against the person who is in unauthorized occupation of a public premises. The entire procedure for recovery of arrears of rent or damages from a person in unauthorized occupation of public premises by public/statutory authority has been provided under Section 7 of the Act which is self contained code in this regard. So also if pursuant to the order passed under Section 7 of the Act by the Competent Authority, the unauthorized occupant does not pay the arrears of rent found to be due, the Competent Authority can initiate proceedings under Section 15 of the Act.
11. Section 15 of the Act reads as under:
15. Recovery of rent, etc., as an arrear of land revenue.-If any person refuses or fails to pay the arrears of rent payable under sub- section (1) of Section 7 or the damages payable under sub-section(2) of the section or the cost awarded to the State Government or the local authority or the corporate authority under sub- section (5) of Section 10 or any portion of such rent, damages or costs within the time, in any, specified therefore in the order relating thereto, the competent officer may issue a certificate for the amount due to the Deputy Commissioner who shall proceed to recover the same as an arrear of land revenue.
12. Section 16 of the Act oust the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain any suit or proceeding not only in respect of eviction of unauthorized occupation of public premises but also bars/prohibits a suit for recovery of arrears of rent payable under sub section (1) of 7 of the Act and damages payable under sub-section (2) of 7 or any portion of such rent damages or costs.
13. A plain reading of Section 16 of the said Act 1974 clearly indicates a suit for recovery of arrears of rent/damages in respect of public premises as defined under Section 2(e) of the Act against the unauthorized occupant would not be maintainable and the same would be barred under Section 16 of the Act. In this context, it is relevant to referred to the definition of Public Premise under section 2(e) of the Act.
2(e)(i) “Public Premises” means any premises belonging to or allotted to State Government or taken on lease or requisitioned by or on behalf of the State Government and includes any premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of.-
i) a local authority.
14. It is not in dispute that the respondent is a local authority and premises in question in respect of which the petitioner alleged to be due in arrears of rent is a public premises within the meaning of Section 2(e)(i) of the Act.
15. Under these circumstances, it is clear, the suit for recovery of arrears of rent by the respondent/local authority in respect of public premises from the petitioner is clearly barred by Sections 7 and 16 of the said Act of 1974.
16. The Court below has clearly misdirected in coming to the conclusion that the bar of jurisdiction of the Civil Court will apply only to actions taken under the Act or any order passed in pursuance of the Act. The reasoning of the Court below at paragraph 17 and 18 of the impugned order is clearly fallacies and contrary to the provisions contained under sections 7 and 16 of the Act. As stated above, the suit filed by the respondent is not maintainable and barred under the provisions of Sections 7 and 16 of the Act and consequently, the plaint was liable to be rejected on that ground alone.
17. A perusal of the impugned order also indicate the Court as acted illegally and with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction in rejecting I.A.No.V filed by the petitioner and consequently, the same warrants interference at the hands of this Court under Section 115 of the CPC. Accordingly, I pass the following:
:ORDER:
Revision Petition is hereby allowed.
The impugned order dated 29.08.2013 passed on I.A.No.V in O.S.No.442/2006 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Devanahalli is hereby rejected. Consequently, the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff stands dismissed.
Ordered accordingly. No costs.
JS/-
Sd/- JUDGE