Dismissed

Mr.Surendra Kular v. Smt Parvathi

Karnataka HC16 Apr 2021HRRP/28/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka rejected the petitioner's challenge under Section 115 CPC to the confirmation of an eviction decree. The Court held that an order under Section 43 of the Karnataka Rent Act finding the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship is final for the purposes of eviction proceedings and does not require reconsideration after evidence is adduced.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed; eviction decree confirmed.

Mr.Surendra Kular Vs Smt Parvathi — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE N.S. SANJAY GOWDA

¶6

H.R.R.P. No. 28/2020 (EVI)

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

¶9

Mr. Surendra Kular Aged about 61 years S/o. late Krishna Kulal R/a. D. No. 7-3-366 Thingalaya Compound Boloor Katte, S B Road Boloor, Mangalore – 575 003. … PETITIONER

¶10

(By Sri. Praveen Kumar K.N., Adv.) AND :

¶11

¶12

Smt. Parvathi D/o. Late Vasu Kotian Aged about 60 years R/a. Dharma Nagara Ombattu Kere Ullala, Mangalore Taluk Pin 575020.

¶13

Eknatha

¶14

Aged 58 years S/o. late Vasu Kotian

¶15

¶16

Thingalaya Compound Boloor Katte S.B. Road, Boloor Mangalore – 575 003. 3. Rekha Aged about 46 years D/o. Late Vasu Kotian Thingalaya Compound Boloor Katte S.B. Road, Boloor Mangalore – 575 003.

¶17

Vishalakshi

¶18

Aged about 50 years D/o. late Vasu Kotian R/a. Mogaveerapalya Ullala Mangalore taluk – 575 020.

¶19

Pushparaj Aged about 45 years S/o. Vasu Kotian Thingalaya Compound Boloor Katte S.B. Road, Boloor Mangalore – 575 003. … RESPONDENTS (By Sri. K. Ravishankar, Adv.) ---

¶20

This HRRP is filed under Section 115 CPC against the judgment and decree dated 26.08.2020 passed in RRP No. 14/2019 on the file of the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangalore, dismissing the petition and confirming the order dated 21.10.2019

¶21

¶22

passed in HRC No. 21/2015 on the file of the II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Mangalore, D.K. allowing the petition filed under Section 27(2)(r) and 27(2)(a) of the Karnataka Rent Act 1999 for eviction. This HRRP coming on for Admission this day, the Court passed the following;

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

The respondents herein filed an eviction petition against the present petitioner. They contended that the petitioner was their tenant and was paying monthly rent of Rs.1,500/-. They stated that they required the premises for their own occupation and hence, they were constrained to file the eviction petition.

¶25

The petitioner herein entered appearance and

¶26

denied the assertion that he was a tenant. The petitioner basically denied all the allegations put forth by the respondents. He basically stated that there was no jural relationship between himself and the respondents and he set up a plea that ever since his birth he was staying in the petition premises and he

¶27

¶28

was in settled possession of the petition premises for more than 57 years without there being any objection from any one. He also stated that he had perfected his title by way of adverse possession. A plea was also put forth that there were civil suits before the civil Courts in respect of the ownership and the respondents were not the landlords. He contended that he had invested 15 to 20 lakhs to renovate the house and to keep it in good condition. He stated that since the respondents were not the landlords or the owners, the petition would have to be dismissed.

¶29

During the pendency of the proceedings the petitioner filed an application seeking for a direction to the respondents to approach the competent civil Court for a declaration since there was a serious dispute regarding the title of the petitioner and regarding the existence of jural relationship between them.

¶30

¶31

The Trial Court by order dated 25.01.2017 dismissed the said application after recording a finding that the rent receipts produced by the respondents did prove the existence of a jural relationship of landlord and tenant.

¶32

This order dated 25.01.2017 passed on I.A. No. 1 was accepted by the petitioner inasmuch as no

¶33

revision was filed.

¶34

The trial Court after considering the matter on merits came to the conclusion that the respondents had made out a case for eviction of the petitioner and accordingly, allowed the petition. As far as the question of relationship was concerned, the trial Court took the view that this question had already been decided by the order dated 25.01.2017 and therefore the same issue could not be re-agitated.

¶35

¶36

The petitioner, being aggrieved preferred a

¶37

revision. The revisional Court after re-appreciating the entire matter came to the conclusion that the decision rendered by the trial Court was just and proper and did

¶38

not call for any interference. The revisional Court concurred with the view taken by the trial Court that the question of relationship of landlord and tenant had been decided when I.A. No. 1 was decided and therefore it was not permissible for the petitioner to re-agitate the said issue once again. The revisional Court also took into consideration the plea of adverse possession raised

¶39

by the petitioner and came to the conclusion that this plea set up by the tenant itself indicated that an attempt was being made to protract the proceedings. The revisional Court accordingly dismissed the revision.

¶40

Learned counsel petitioner submitted that the decision rendered on I.A. No. 1 regarding jural relationship was only an interlocutory order and the

¶41

¶42

same ought to have been considered afresh after the evidence was adduced. He submitted that since that had not been done, the entire proceedings were vitiated.

¶43

It is to be stated here that Section 43 of the

¶44

Karnataka Rent Act mandates that when there is a dispute of relationship of landlord and tenant, if the Court is of the view that there is no prima facie evidence of relationship of landlord and tenant, it shall at once stop all further proceedings and direct the parties to approach the competent Court of civil jurisdiction to regularize their rights. If, on the other hand, the Court comes to the conclusion that there did exist a relationship of landlord and tenant, it was bound to consider the petition for eviction.

¶45

In my view, the decision rendered on an application under Section 43 of the Act cannot be considered as an interlocutory order and the decision rendered by the Court holding that there was a

¶46

¶47

relationship of landlord and tenant would conclude that issue insofar as the eviction proceedings were concerned finally.

¶48

Admittedly, the order passed on I.A. No. 1 was not challenged and was thereby accepted by the petitioner. In that view of the matter, the trial Court and the revisional Court were justified in coming to the conclusion that the question of jural relationship could not be pressed into service by the petitioner once again.

¶49

Learned counsel petitioner sought to rely on the decision of Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of Sri. C.S. Sheshagiri Vs. Smt. Jayalakshmi @ Jayalakshmamma since deceased by LRs, HRRP No. 31/2011 decided on 07.01.2016 to contend that the order passed on I.A. No. 1 was in essence an interlocutory order. The said assertion cannot be accepted. The Division Bench of this Court stated as follows:

¶50

¶51

“ 22. … … … However, the application under Section 43 is not an independent proceedings. It is in the nature of an interlocutory application that can be filed in any proceedings initiated under the Act. Therefore, any order passed on this application would be an order in the proceedings initiated under the Act.”

¶52

The observation of this Court would indicate

¶53

that no doubt the application filed under Section 43 of the Act would be an interlocutory application and could be filed at any stage of the proceedings. However, the Court has clearly stated that an order passed on such an interlocutory application would be an order in proceedings initiated under Section 43 of the Act. This by itself would indicate that there would be a finality regarding the jural relationship on the passing of an order under Section 43 of the Act. Therefore, I am unable to accept the contention of learned counsel for petitioner. I find no infirmity in the order passed by the

¶54

¶55

Courts below and therefore, dismiss the revision petition.

¶56

Sd/-

¶57

JUDGE.

¶58

LRS.

Mr.Surendra Kular v. Smt Parvathi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr.Surendra Kular v. Smt Parvathi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Sahanashree K S Vs Kaveri Grameena Bank

Patel Veneersprivate Limited Vs State of Karnataka

Dr. K. Krishnappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri M Sudhakar Vs the Reserve Bank of India

Sri. Arjun Mewara Vs State of Karnataka

Sri S K Sunil Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka