Partly allowed

Krishna Hari Killedar v. Raghunath Aliyas Vishnu

Karnataka HC26 Jul 2019HRRP/100020/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a revision petition, the Karnataka High Court held that dismissing a rent revision suit for non-prosecution was unsustainable when the lower court failed to consider the disposal of a pending High Court revision petition directing inquiry into objectionable clauses. The High Court set aside the dismissal, restored the matter, and remanded it for disposal on merits.

What did the court decide?

The revision order dismissing the rent revision for non-prosecution is set aside; the suit is restored and remanded to the Revisional Court for disposal on merits.

Krishna Hari Killedar Vs Raghunath Aliyas Vishnu — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 26^th DAY OF JULY 2019

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P.G.M. PATIL

¶6

HRRP NO.100020/2015

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

KRISHNA HARI KILLEDAR, AGED: ABOUT 79 YEARS, R/O: HEAD POST OFFICE, HUBLI, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS .

¶9

1(a) DINDAYAL S/O KRISHNA KILLADAR, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O NEAR HEAD POST OFFICE, STATION ROAD, HUBLI.

¶10

1(b) SANDEEP S/O KRISHNA KILLADAR, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/O NEAR HEAD POST OFFICE, OPP: BSNL OFFICE, STATION ROAD, HUBLI, NOW AT MUMBAI.

¶11

1(c) BHARATI W/O PRAKASH AVLEKAR, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, TARABAI PARK, KOLHAPUR. ... PETITIONERS

¶12

(By SRI. SANTOSH B MANE, ADV.)

¶13

AND:

¶14

RAGHUNATH ALIYAS VISHNU,

¶15

¶16

SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.

¶17

1 (a) USHA W/O RAGHUNATH ALIYAS VISHNU PAHANASALKAR, AGED: ABOUT 72 YEARS, R/O: STATION ROAD, HUBLI.

¶18

1 (b) VIJAYKUMAR S/O RAGHUNATH ALIYAS VISHNU PHANASALKAR, AGED: ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O: STATION ROAD, HUBLI.

¶19

1 (c) VIDHYADHAR S/O RAGHUNATH ALIYAS VISHNU PHANASALKAR, AGED: ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O: STATION ROAD, HUBLI.

¶20

... RESPONDENTS

¶21

(By SRI. DINESH M. KULKARNI, ADV.)

¶22

HRRP FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 06.11.2015 PASSED BY THE LEARNED I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE HUBBALLI IN RENT REVISION NO.22/2010 DISMISSING THE REVISION PETITION FOR NON-PROSECUTION WHICH WAS FILED QUESTIONING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN HRC NO.100/1999 PASSED BY THE LEARNED IV-ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON : 22.07.2019. ORDERS PRONOUNCED ON : 26.07.2019.

¶23

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ADMISSION, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

¶25

ORDERS

¶26

The tenants being aggrieved by the order dated 06.11.2015 passed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hubli in Rent Revision No.22/2010 dismissing the revision petition for non-prosecution which was filed questioning the judgment and decree dated 12.09.2005 passed by the IV Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Hubli ordering for eviction of petitioner has filed this revision petition.

¶27

The brief facts of the case are as follows:

¶28

Respondent No.1 is the holder of long term

¶29

leasehold rights in respect of the petition premises consisting of single room tenement measuring 7’X17’ feet situated in CTS number in Ward No.1 at Station Road, Hubli. The property is owned by Moorusavira Math. Respondent No.1 has sublet the petition premises to the petitioners. Subsequently, respondent No.1 filed HRC No.100/1999 contending that the petitioners have

¶30

¶31

not paid the rent and that the premises is required for his personal use.

¶32

The petitioner filed objections in the said case stating that he is ready to deposit the arrears of rent before the Court and objections were not received and were rejected. Therefore he filed HRRP No.501/2013 before this Court which was allowed directing the Revisional Court to consider the objections filed by him. However, unfortunately the Court below did not consider the same and dismissed the Rent Revision No.22/2010 on 06.11.2015 for non-prosecution.

¶33

Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners and the respondents.

¶34

A short question which arise for consideration in

¶35

this revision petition is, as to whether the revision petitioner has made out grounds for setting aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the

¶36

¶37

Revisional Court for disposal of RR No.22/2010 on merits.

¶38

The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the Revisional Court dismissed the revision petition for non-prosecution without giving opportunity to the revision petitioner to urge in respect of the order passed in HRRP No.501/2013 and that the objections filed by the tenant under Section 45 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 were not at all considered, as directed in HRRP No.501/2013 and therefore the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

¶39

Per contra the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the order-sheet in RR No.22/2010 goes to show that several opportunities were given to the revision petitioner but he did not prosecute the said revision and therefore the Revisional Court dismissed the said revision petition on 06.11.2015, after noting

¶40

¶41

the absence of the revision petitioner and therefore he supports the impugned order.

¶42

It is admitted that the present revision petitioner had filed HRRP No.501/2013 before this Court challenging the order dated 23.08.2012 passed in Rent Revision No.22/2010 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hubli on the ground that his objections filed under Section 45 of the Karnataka Rent Act were rejected improperly. This Court allowed HRRP No.501/2013 on 09.07.2015. The impugned order passed by the Revisional Court so far as rejecting objections filed by the petitioners for non-payment of rent was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Revisional Court for fresh adjudication including the objections raised by the petitioner with regard to payment of arrears in view of mandatory provisions of Section 45 of the Rent Act and the Revisional Court was

¶43

¶44

also directed to dispose of the revision as expeditiously as possible.

¶45

Though the said HRRP was disposed off on 09.07.2015, the order-sheet in RR No.22/2010 before the Revisional Court shows that the disposal of HRRP No.501/2013 and the direction given in the said case was non at all brought to the notice of the Revisional Court in RR No.22/2010. The order sheet dated 01.08.2015 shows that there was no representation for both the parties. The parties were directed to produce orders regarding pendency of HRRP No.501/2013. Subsequently, the matter was adjourned on 20.08.2015, 22.08.2015, 31.08.2015, 19.09.2015, 22.09.2015, 26.09.2015, 13.10.2015 and 31.10.2015 for production of orders passed in HRRP. However, the said order was not produced before the Revisional Court. On 06.11.2015, the Revisional Court noticed the absence of the revision petitioner till 5.30 p.m. before

¶46

¶47

dismissing the rent revision. When HRRP No.501/2013 was disposed off by this Court on 09.07.2015, communication must have been issued to the Revisional Court, it is not known why it was not communicated to the said Court and there is also inaction of the revision petitioners and the respondents in not producing the copy of the order passed in HRRP No.501/2013. Therefore, the direction given by this Court in HRRP No.501/2013 were not at all brought to the notice of the Revisional Court and therefore the Revisional Court ought not to have dismissed the rent revision without ascertaining pendency or disposal of HRRP No.501/2013 by this Court on 09.07.2015 on verification through the website of the High Court. Therefore the dismissal of the rent revision for nonprosecution on 06.11.2015 is not proper. The direction issued by this Court in HRRP No.501/2013 are not at all followed by the Revisional Court and the same was not brought to the notice of the said Court nor the said

¶48

¶49

Court made an attempt to get information about the disposal of the said HRRP.

¶50

Under these circumstances, this Court holds that the revision petitioner has made out grounds for setting aside the impugned order dismissing the Rent Revision No.22/2010 for non-prosecution and restore the said rent revision on its original file and the Revisional Court has to be once again directed to dispose of the said rent revision on merits after following the directions issued by this Court in HRRP No.501/2013. However, it is also necessary to impose a reasonable cost on the revision petitioner for his inaction.

¶51

The point for consideration is answered accordingly. In the result, this Court proceed to pass the following:

¶52

¶53

ORDER

¶54

The revision petition under Section 115 of CPC is allowed, subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- by the revision petitioner to the respondents.

¶55

The order passed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hubli in Rent Revision No.22/2010 dismissing the said revision petition is set aside. The Rent Revision No.22/2010 is restored to its original file.

¶56

The matter is remanded to the Revisional Court with a direction to dispose of the rent revision after following the directions issued in HRRP No.501/2013 in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible.

¶57

Sd/JUDGE

¶58

KGK

Krishna Hari Killedar v. Raghunath Aliyas Vishnu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishna Hari Killedar v. Raghunath Aliyas Vishnu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Thammannappa N C Vs the Manager

Smt J P Hemalatha Vs Mr Jayaprakash

Ms Sovit Jain R Vs the Assets Reconstruction

Sri G Manjunatha Rao Vs M/S Zoom Car India Pvt. Ltd.

Sri. M. Shankar Vs Smt. Pushpamma

Mohammed Dastagir Vs Smt. Geethalakshmi