Dismissed

Mr. S.K. Vivekanandda v. Mrs. Noor Bushra Sayeed

Karnataka HC6 Sept 2021CRP/217/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court rejected a civil revision petition under Section 115 of CPC seeking to set aside an order rejecting a plaint. The court held that the issue of tenancy and lease relationship cannot be decided summarily. Directions were issued to the trial court to consider the pending arbitration application on merits.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 20.02.2019 reaffirmed; CRP dismissed; Trial court directed to consider arbitration application.

Mr. S.K. Vivekanandda Vs Mrs. Noor Bushra Sayeed — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 06^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶6

CRP NO. 217 OF 2019 (IO)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MR. S.K. VIVEKANADA S/O. SHIVANAND AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS C/O. M/S. THE FISH MART (M/S. FISH MART RETAIL INDIA PVT. LTD.) NO.32 & 32/1, KHALEEL PLAZA, R.V.ROAD BASAVANAGUDI BENGALURU - 560 004

¶9

... PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. SATEESH S. KUDTARKAR, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

MRS. NOOR BUSHRA SAYEED W/O. DR.BASEER AHMED SAYEED AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS

¶13

MRS. NOOR ZUBEIDA KHAN W/O. DR. IFTHEKHAR ABRA KHAN AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS

¶14

MRS. AZRA HAMEED @ MRS. AZRA KHALEEL W/O. NAUSHEER HAMEED AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS

¶15

MRS. NOOR HAJIRA KHALEEL @ NOOR HAJIRA FAHEEM W/O. ASRAR FATHEEM AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS

¶16

ALL THE ABOVE SL.NO.1 TO 4 ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR PARENTS AND

¶17

¶18

GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER MR. A.R.KHALEEL AND MRS. NOOR JAHAN KHALEEL RESIDING AT NO.27/2, I & II FLOOR R.V.ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI BENGALURU - 560 004 ... RESPONDENTS

¶19

¶20

THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 06.08.2019 PASSED IN S.C.NO.11/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, TUMKUR, REJECTING THE I.A.FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11 OF CPC FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT.

¶21

¶22

THIS CRP COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for setting aside the order dated 20.02.2019 passed in I.A.No.3 in O.S.No.8728/2017, by the XXVII Additional City Civil Judge (CCH-9), Bengaluru and to allow I.A.No.3.

¶25

O.S.No.8728/2017 had been filed seeking for eviction of the petitioner from the suit schedule property and certain other reliefs.

¶26

In the said suit, written statement has been filed

¶27

stating various contentions with regard to the

¶28

¶29

defendant not being the tenant of the property but the tenant being one M/s. Fish Mart Retail India Pvt. Ltd. This contention was based on the contention that it is M/s.Fish Mart Retail India Pvt. Ltd, who has been making payment of the rental.

¶30

Subsequent thereto, an application under Order 7 Rule 11(b) of CPC was came to be filed seeking for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the said suit was not maintainable against the defendant and the suit ought to have been filed against M/s. Fish Mart Retail India Pvt. Ltd. On enquiry, learned counsel for the petitioner has filed memo today producing a copy of the lease deed of commercial premises dated 21.09.2012. A perusal thereof indicates the said lease is between the plaintiff and defendant in the suit, M/s. Fish Mart Retail India Pvt. Ltd is not a party to the lease deed.

¶31

Now, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that despite the lease deed being in the

¶32

¶33

name of the defendant, since the payments have been made by M/s. Fish Mart Retail India Pvt. Ltd and accepted by the land owner. The jural relationship of the landlord and tenants is between the plaintiff and M/s. Fish Mart Retail India Pvt. Ltd and not with the defendant and as such plaint has to be rejected.

¶34

Such a contention cannot be acceptable for the simple reason that there is no allotment of tenancy in favour M/s. Fish Mart Retail India Pvt. Ltd, which has been produced and such a contention cannot be one, which could be decided in an application filed under Order 7 Rule 11B of CPC. The same would require trial to be held, which is the finding of the trial Court in the impugned order.

¶35

Hence, I do not find any reasons to interfere with the said order. The CRP is dismissed at the stage of admission.

¶36

¶37

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that he has filed an application under Section 8 Read with Section 11 of the Arbitration Conciliation Act, 1996. If, such an application has been filed, the trial Court is directed to consider the application on merits in accordance with law at the earliest. This court has not expressed an opinion on the merits of such an application.

¶38

Sd/JUDGE

¶39

Mr. S.K. Vivekanandda v. Mrs. Noor Bushra Sayeed

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. S.K. Vivekanandda v. Mrs. Noor Bushra Sayeed

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

Bhawandas Sharma Vs Indian Overseas Bank

G O Madhu Vs S M Gowda

Amit Gautam Vs Indecomm Global Services (Mauritius)

Smt Ahalya Vs Attimabbe Vidya Mandira Trust

Mr. Vittal Nayak Vs Mr. Baburaya Nayak

Smt. Saritha N Doshi Vs State of Karnataka