Dismissed

Sri M S Balaji Prasad v. Sri Narasimha Murthy

Karnataka HC4 Dec 2021CRP/211/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a civil revision petition filed against an eviction decree. The tenant, while challenging the decree, clarified that execution should be limited strictly to the property details in the schedule. The Court dismissed the revision but clarified that any execution beyond the defined boundaries is liable to be opposed.

What did the court decide?

Execution of the decree shall be strictly in respect of the boundaries and measurement found in the schedule to the Judgment and Decree.

Sri M S Balaji Prasad Vs Sri Narasimha Murthy — Execution and Attachment | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021 BEFORE

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.211 OF 2020 (SC)

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

SRI. M.S. BALAJI PRASAD SON OF A.R. SRINIVASAN, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.25, 3^RD C MAIN ROAD, SRIRAMANAGAR, NEAR GELEYARA BALAGA BUS STOP, MAHALAKSHMIPURAM POST, BANGALORE-560 086

¶6

…PETITIONER

¶7

(BY SRI. SHREERAM THIMMAPPA NAYAK, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶8

SRI. NARASIMHA MURTHY, SON OF LATE NARASIMHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.277, MADESHWARANAGAR, VISHWANEEDAM POST, BANGALORE-560091.

¶9

…RESPONDENT (SRI. G. SHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR CAVEATORRESPONDENT)

¶10

¶11

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 18 OF THE KARNATAKA SMALL CAUSES COURTS ACT, 1964 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 10.01.2020 PASSED IN SC.NO.2132/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR EVICTION.

¶12

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

ORDER

¶14

Though this Petition is listed for Orders, it is taken up for final disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶15

This revision petition under Section 18 of the Karnataka Small Cause Courts Act, 1964 is filed by the tenant challenging his eviction from the petition premises in terms of the Order dated 10.01.2020 passed by the Court of Small Causes at Bengaluru (SCCH-09) (henceforth referred to as ‘the Trial Court’) in S.C. No.2132/2011.

¶16

The judgment and decree of the Trial Court discloses that the plaintiff / landlord claimed to be the owner of the suit schedule property which he purchased from the defendant / tenant in terms of a sale deed dated

¶17

¶18

21.02.2007. He claimed that after sale of the property, the tenant represented to him that he could not find alternate premises for his occupation and therefore, requested the landlord to permit him to continue in the suit premises for a period of six months from 21.02.2007. Accordingly, a rent agreement was entered into between the landlord and the tenant on 21.02.2007 whereby the tenant agreed to pay monthly rent of Rs.5,000/- and agreed to vacate the suit premises within six months therefrom. The landlord claimed that the tenant neither paid the rent nor vacated the premises, which constrained him to cause a notice dated 04.06.2007 to the tenant, terminating the tenancy with effect from 31.07.2007. The landlord called upon the tenant to quit and deliver vacant possession of the suit premises and also pay arrears of rent. Though this notice was served, the tenant neither vacated the premises nor paid the rent. Hence, the landlord filed a suit for ejectment of the tenant from the suit premises.

¶19

¶20

The tenant contested the suit and claimed that the sale deed dated 21.02.2007 was obtained from him forcibly. He claimed that in January 2007, he was badly in need of money as he had suffered loss in business. That he was carrying on business under the name and style of M/s.Suyoga Technologies Limited. He claimed that in January 2007, his creditors cornered him and forced him to repay the money. Thus, in order to come out of the grave situation, he had no other option than to raise money on the suit premises. He claimed that he disclosed this to the landlord and requested for help. The landlord took advantage of the situation and agreed to help if the tenant executed a document that was similar to an agreement of sale executed by him in respect of another property. Therefore, he contended that the sale deed dated 21.02.2007 was executed against his will and the lease agreement dated 21.02.2007 was also obtained fraudulently. He claimed that he was not a tenant and that there was no jural relationship of landlord and tenant.

¶21

¶22

5. Based on these contentions, the Trial Court

¶23

framed the following Issues:

¶24

“1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is the landlord and defendant is the tenant under him and he has terminated the tenancy of defendant in accordance with law?

¶25

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for ejectment?

¶26

What order or decree?”

¶27

The landlord was examined as PW.1 and he

¶28

marked documents as Exs.P1 to P6 while the tenant was examined as DW.1 and he marked documents as Exs.D1 and D2.

¶29

The Trial Court took note of the fact that the suit in O.S. No.8640/2007 was initially filed before the City Civil Court and the same was transferred to the Trial Court and renumbered as S.C. No.2132/2011. An application filed by the tenant under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, ‘the CPC’) for rejection of the

¶30

plaint was rejected by the Trial Court by Order dated 02.07.2013, but having regard to the contention raised by

¶31

¶32

the tenant in the written statement, it returned the plaint for being presented in the Civil Court. Aggrieved by this Order, the plaintiff filed C.R.P. No.537/2013 where this Court by its Order dated 20.06.2019, allowed the revision petition by setting the aforesaid Order dated 02.07.2013 and remanded the case to the Trial Court with a direction to the Trial Court to dispose off the suit after rendering its finding on Ex.P2.

¶33

After remand, The Trial Court noticed from

¶34

Ex.P2 that the tenant had taken the suit premises on a monthly rent of Rs.5,000/- for a period of six months on 21.02.2007. The Trial Court took into cognizance the evidence of the tenant where he categorically admitted the execution of the lease agreement dated 21.02.2007. The Trial Court held that the ownership of the landlord in respect of the suit schedule premises as well as the lease created in favour of the tenant was therefore proved. It also held that the landlord had caused a notice of termination of tenancy which was duly served upon the

¶35

¶36

tenant and therefore, the tenant was bound in law to quit and deliver vacant possession of the suit premises. Hence, it decreed the suit and directed the tenant to quit and deliver the vacant possession of the suit premises to the landlord within 30 days from the date of the decree.

¶37

Being aggrieved by the aforesaid Judgment

¶38

and Decree, the present revision petition is filed.

¶39

During the course of this petition, the learned counsel for the tenant filed a memo dated 03.12.2021 stating that the present eviction petition is filed in respect of house list No.285 situated in Sy. No.1 of Jarakabande kaval where a '05 square feet house' is allegedly situate. He claimed that the adjacent property bearing No.286 was also the subject matter of a dispute in O.S. No.8641/2007 filed before the learned XVIII Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru City, for specific performance which was disposed off on 30.06.2014 against which RFA No.1459/2014 was filed and this Court allowed the appeal in part on 31.12.2019 inter alia directing the tenant to

¶40

¶41

refund the advance sale consideration. The learned counsel submitted that the landlord is trying to execute the decree granted in S.C. No.2132/2011 in respect of the property bearing No.286 as there is no house situate in the property bearing No.285.

¶42

The learned counsel for the tenant has placed on record the execution petition filed by the landlord in Ex. P. No.226/2020 before the Trial Court which indicates the decree to be executed is in respect of the property which corresponds to the schedule mentioned in the decree. The learned counsel for the tenant submits that he has no objection for execution of the decree passed by the Trial Court and reiterated that the decree should be executed only in respect of the area and boundaries mentioned in the schedule to the decree.

¶43

The learned counsel for the landlord did not deny the filing of O.S. No.8641/2007 for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 27.01.2007 executed by the tenant in respect of an adjacent site and

¶44

¶45

that RFA No.1459/2014 was filed before this Court, where this Court had inter alia directed refund of the sale consideration. A Special Leave Petition in SLP (C) No. 8629/2020 preferred against the Judgment and Decree passed in RFA No.1459/2014 was dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in terms of the Order dated 02.09.2020. If that be so, the site/s bearing Nos.285 and 286 are two different properties and the same is within the knowledge of both the parties.

¶46

Since the learned counsel for the tenant has no objection for the execution of the decree passed by the Trial Court, the impugned Judgment and Decree passed by the Trial Court need not be interfered with.

¶47

Hence, this Revision Petition is dismissed. However, it is made clear that the execution of the Judgment and Decree passed by the Trial Court shall be strictly in respect of the boundaries and measurement found in the schedule to the Judgment and Decree passed by the Trial Court in S.C. No.2132/2011. If the execution is against any other

¶48

¶49

property, the tenant shall be entitled to oppose the same in accordance with law.

¶50

The pending interlocutory application stands

¶51

disposed off.

¶52

Sd/JUDGE

¶53

sma

Sri M S Balaji Prasad v. Sri Narasimha Murthy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri M S Balaji Prasad v. Sri Narasimha Murthy

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

R S Gopalkrishna Vs Shyamala Hegde

Chidananda Reddy Vs T Thimma Reddy @ Thadaparthi Thimmanna

Sri Somegowda Vs Assistant Commissioner

Sri K.M.Eregowda Vs Smt K S Sathyamma

Hindu Kote Garadi (R) Vs Sheikh Budan Sab

Sri Nanjamariyappa Vs State of Karnataka