IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

HOUSE RENT REV. PETITION NO. 100006 OF 2023 (-)

BETWEEN:

• 1. M.C. RUKMINI BAI W/O. LATE RAMACHANDRAIAH D/O. M.C. JEEVAMMA, AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. OLD DOOR NO.609, NEW DOOR NO.265, HAMPI ROAD, HOSAPETE, DIST: BALLARI(THEN) VIJAYANAGAR DISTRICT (NOW).
• 2. M.C. ANNAPURNA BAI W/O. M.C. GALEPPA, AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. OLD DOOR NO.609, NEW DOOR NO.265, HAMPI ROAD, HOSAPETE, DIST: BALLARI(THEN) VIJAYANAGAR DISTRICT (NOW).

MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

…PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. ARUN L. NEELOPANT, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE THEOSOPHICAL LODGE (SOCIETY), BY ITS SECRETARY, ASHOK JERE, S/O. LATE J. DATTATREYA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, HAMPI ROAD, HOSAPETE TALUK, DIST: BALLARI (THEN) VIJAYANAGAR DISTRICT (NOW).

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. SATISH M.S., ADVOCATE FOR C/R)

THIS HRRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC READ WITH SECTION 46 OF KARNATAKA RENT ACT 1999 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT PASSED IN H.R.C.A. NO.5001/2020 DATED 20.01.2023 PASSED BY THE III DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE COURT BALLARI (SITTING AT HOSAPETE) AND THE JUDGMENT PASSED IN H.R.C.NO.4/2014 DATED 15.02.2020 BY THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE HOSAPETE AND DISMISS THE PETITION IN H.R.C.NO.4/2014 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICES AND EQUITY.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

ORAL ORDER

This Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of CPC read with Section 46 of Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), challenging the order dated 20.01.2023 in HRCA No.5001 of 2020 on the file of III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bellari, (Sitting at Hosapete) dismissing the appeal and confirming the order dated 15.02.2020 in HRC No.4 of 2014 on the file of Principal Civil Judge

and JMFC, Hosapete, allowing the petition filed by the respondent herein.

2. Heard Sri. Arun L. Neelopant, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri. Satish M.S., learned counsel for the respondent / caveator.

3. Sri. Arun L. Neelopant, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners raised preliminary objection in respect of the maintainability of the petition, seeking eviction of the respondent in HRC No.4 of 2014 before the Trial Court on the ground that, the respondent herein a charitable Institution (Society) and therefore, as per Section 2(3)(ii) of the Act, the petition under Section 27 of the Act is not maintainable. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has made available the Bye-law of the respondent-Charitable Institution (Society) and contended with reference to the object of the

respondent-Society and also refers to Clause-31 of the Bye-laws and argued that the both the courts below ought to have considered the jurisdictional issue and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court.

4. Sri. Satish M.S. learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Society countered the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and has filed the certification of registration of the respondent-Institution/Society under the provisions of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1860 (Central Act, 21 of 1860). It is also the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent that, the petitioners herein have not raised said plea before the courts below and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the petition on the ground that both the courts below have concurred that the petitioners herein have to vacate

• 4 -

the schedule property and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the petition.

5. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I have carefully examined the rules of the respondent-Institution/Society, wherein, the name and objects reads as under:

"1. Name and Objects:

1. This Lodge shall be designated "The Hospet Theosophical Lodge, Hospet". The objects of the Lodge are:

First:- To form a nucles of the Universal Brotherhood of Humanity, without distinction of rасе, creed, sex, caste or colour.

Second: To encourage the study of comparative Religion, Philosophy and Science.

Third: To investigate the unexplained laws of nature and the powers latent in man.

2. The above objects shall be attained by various means and methods found suitable for the purpose, such as Study Camps, periodical debates or discussions

on useful topics of moral, Intellectual or spiritual importance, public lectures and running a library and a Reading Room.

Clause 31 of the Rules provides as follows:

"31. If the number of members on the rolls of the Lodge Hospet dwindle down to less than three, all the properties which may then belong to the Hospet Theosophical Lodge shall vest in the Trust of the Indian Section, Theosophical Society, the Head Quarters of which, the society is now at Banaras for furtherance of the objects of the Theosophical Society an in case that the Section of the Society cease to exist, they shall vest in the Trustee for the time being appointed or acting under the Deed of the Theosophical Society International Section and the Head Quarter of which the Society is now at Adyar, Madras for the furtherance of the objects of the Theosophical Society. And if the Society at Adyar ceases to exist the said properties shall vest in the Municipal Council of Hospet which shall be its properties and dispose off the same in such manner and for such purposes either religious, Charitable, Philanthrophical as the council deem fit for the benefit of the citizens of Hospet not inconsistent with the spirits of the Religion."

(Emphasis by me)

6. In the backdrop of this aspect, it is relevant to extract Section 2 of the Act, which reads as under: (rent Act)

"2. Application of the Act.

(1) Chapters-I to III and Chapter-V to VIII of this Act shall apply to areas specified in the First Schedule.

(2) Chapters I, and IV shall apply only to areas specified in the Second Schedule.

(3) Nothing contained in this Act shall apply,-

(a) to any premises belonging to,-

(i) the State Government or the Central Government or a local authority;

(ii) a Muzarai or religious or charitable institution;

(iii) a Wakf."

(Emphasis by me)

7. The language employed in Section 2(3)(ii) makes it clear that, if any premises is belonging to the charitable Institution, then the Karnataka Rent Act is not applicable. In this regard it is pertinent to cite the

declaration of the law made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kiran Singh And Others vs. Chaman Paswan And Others reported in AIR 1954 SC 340 and at paragraph 6 it is held as follows:

"6. The answer to these contentions must depend on what the position in law is when a Court entertains a suit or an appeal over which it has no jurisdiction, and what the effect of section II of the Suits Valuation Act is on that position. It is a fundamental principle well established that a decree passed by a Court without jurisdiction is a nullity, and that its invalidity could be set up whenever and wherever it is sought to be enforced or relied upon, even at the stage of execution and even in collateral proceedings. A defect of jurisdiction, whether it is pecuniary or territorial, or whether it is in respect of the subject-matter of the action, strikes at the very authority of the Court to pass any decree, and such a defect cannot be cured even by consent of parties. If the question now under consideration fell to be' determined only on the application of general principles governing the matter, there can be no doubt that the District Court of Monghyr was coram non judice, and that its judgment and decree would be nullities. The question is what is the effect of section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act on this position."

(Emphasis by me)

• 8 -

8. The said aspect of the matter was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hasham Abbas Sayyad vs. Usman Abbas Sayyad reported AIR 2007 SC 1077, wherein paragraphs 21 to 23 held as follows:

"21. The core question is as to whether an order passed by a person lacking inherent jurisdiction would be a nullity. It will be so. The principles of estoppel, waiver and acquiescence or even res judicata which are procedural in nature would have no application in a case where an order has been passed by the Tribunal/Court which has no authority in that behalf. Any order passed by a court without jurisdiction would be coram non judice being a nullity, the same ordinarily should not be given effect to. [See Chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh and Another v. L.V.A. Dikshitulu and Others - AIR 1979 SC 193 & MD Army Welfare Housing Organisation v. Sumangal Services (P) Ltd. (2004) 8 SCC 619].

22. This aspect of the matter has recently been considered by this Court in Harshad Chiman Lal Modi v. DLF Universal Ltd. and Another [(2005) 7 SCC 791], in the following terms :

• 9 -

"We are unable to uphold the contention. The jurisdiction of a court may be classified into several categories. The important categories are (i) Territorial or local jurisdiction; (ii) Pecuniary jurisdiction; and (iii) Jurisdiction over the subject matter. So far as territorial and pecuniary jurisdictions are concerned, objection to such jurisdiction has to be taken at the earliest possible opportunity and in any case at or before settlement of issues. The law is well settled on the point that if such objection is not taken at the earliest, it cannot be allowed to be taken at a subsequent stage. Jurisdiction as to subject matter, however, is totally distinct and stands on a different footing. Where a court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit by reason of any limitation imposed by statute, charter or commission, it cannot take up the cause or matter. An order passed by a court having no jurisdiction is nullity."

[See also Zila Sahakari Kendrya Bank Maryadit v. Shahjadi Begum & Ors. 2006 (9) SCALE 675 and Shahbad Co-op. Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Special Secretary to Govt. of Haryana & Ors. 2006 (11) SCALE 674 para 29]

23. We may, however hasten to add that a distinction must be made between a decree passed by a court which has no territorial or pecuniary jurisdiction in the light of Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure; and a decree passed by a court having no jurisdiction in regard to the subject matter of the suit. Whereas in the former case, the appellate court may not interfere with the decree unless prejudice is shown, ordinarily the second category of the cases would be interfered with."

24. Following the declaration of the law made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, I am of the view that, though the learned counsel appearing for the respondent vehemently contended that said argument was not canvassed before both the Courts below, however the said argument cannot be accepted on the sole ground that the jurisdiction question cannot be cured and shall go to the root of the maintainability of the suit itself and therefore, I am of the view that, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners be accepted. However, there is no impediment for the respondent-Institution/Society recourse to the remedy available under law. With these observations, I pass the following:

NC: 2025:KHC-D:5664 HRRP No. 100006 of 2023

ORDER

• i) Revision Petition is allowed;
• ii) Order dated 20.03.2023 in HRCA No.5001 of 2020 on the file of III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bellari (Sitting at Hosapete) and order dated 15.02.2020 in HRC No.4 of 2014 on the file of Principal Civil Judge Hospete are hereby set aside.

Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

SB CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18