High Court set aside Small Causes Judge's judgment dismissing ejectment suit. Court held defendant admitted title via prior rent agreement and succession. Suit for ejectment decreed.
Impugned judgment set aside; suit for ejectment decreed; office directed to draw decree.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CRP No. 478 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 478 OF 2017 (SC)
BETWEEN:
SON OF LATE K K NAGENDRAPRASAD,
Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI MANISH KUMAR S, ADVOCATE FOR SRI GIRIDHAR S V, ADVOCATE)
AND:
CRP No. 478 of 2017
BANGALORE - 560053.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. H J SANGHVI, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.18 OF THE KARNATAKA SMALL CAUSES COURT ACT, 1964 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 29.08.2017 PASSED IN SC.NO.18/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE XXIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR EJECTMENT.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioners have challenged the judgment dated 29.08.2017 passed by the XXIII Additional Small Causes Judge, Bangalore in S.C.No.18/2013, by which, it dismissed the suit filed by them for ejectment of the tenant / respondent herein.
CRP No. 478 of 2017
their grandmother Smt.K.K.Lakshmi Devi had executed a gift deed dated 05.10.2006 and bequeathed the suit schedule property to the plaintiffs. Consequent thereto, they became the owners of the suit schedule property and the municipal records stood transferred to their name. They claimed that their grandmother had executed a lease deed in favour of the defendant and inducted the defendant as tenant in respect of shop premises No.7. They claim that the defendant was paying a monthly rent of Rs.2,520/- excluding electricity, water consumption and maintenance charges. The plaintiffs conveyed their unwillingness to continue the tenancy of the defendant and requested him to hand over the vacant possession of the suit schedule property. They claimed that though the defendant agreed to vacate the suit schedule property, he went on dragging the matter on one or the other pretext and finally, the plaintiffs terminated the tenancy by a notice dated 05.05.2012, the receipt of which was duly acknowledged by the defendant. Since the defendant failed to deliver the possession of the suit schedule property, the plaintiffs initiated proceedings for his ejectment from the suit schedule property and to recover damages at the rate of Rs.8,200/- per month.
CRP No. 478 of 2017
CRP No. 478 of 2017
therefore, the provisions of the Karnataka Rent Act alone is applicable and that the suit for ejectment was not maintainable.
held that the plaintiffs failed to mark the gift deed dated 05.10.2006 allegedly executed by Lakshmi Devi. It also held that PW-1 in his cross-examination deposed that the predecessor in title had purchased the suit schedule property and it was inherited by their father and thereafter by them.
The trial Court therefore expressed doubt as to how the plaintiffs derived title to the suit schedule property. Therefore, it held that the claim of the plaintiffs that they are the absolute
owners of the suit schedule property is not acceptable. It also held that the plaintiffs were unable to prove that the defendant was a tenant under them or under their predecessor. It relied upon the deposition of PW-1 and in his cross-examination, he stated that his father had executed a lease agreement in favour of the defendant in the year 1990, which was denied by the defendant. However, no documents was produced in that regard. It also held that the plaintiffs did not dispute the fact that Krishnasa had three brothers, four daughters and a son and that there was a on going feud between them. Therefore, the trial Court held that the plaintiffs did not prove their title to the suit schedule property and did not establish the relationship of landlord and tenant and thus, dismissed the suit.
is filed.
suit schedule property by virtue of a gift deed executed by Lakshmi Devi. The defendant in his chief examination had relied upon the rent agreement (Ex.D1) dated 15.06.2004
CRP No. 478 of 2017
which was executed by Smt.K.K.Lakshmi Devi. Therefore, there was no dispute regarding the antecedent title of Lakshmi Devi to the suit schedule property and since the plaintiffs were claiming title to the suit schedule property under Lakshmi Devi, the plaintiffs had established their title to the suit schedule property as well as the fact that the defendant was the tenant under Lakshmi Devi and consequent to the execution of the gift deed, he continued as tenant under the plaintiffs. He therefore, submitted that the trial Court without noticing this document, fell in error in dismissing the suit.
CRP No. 478 of 2017
the rental lease agreement dated 15.06.2004. Therefore, the defendant had explicitly accepted the title of the plaintiffs to the suit schedule property and also the fact that he was a tenant of the predecessor in title of the plaintiffs. Therefore, the plaintiffs not only proved the title of the suit schedule property, but also proved that the defendant was a tenant under them. Therefore, they were entitled to terminate the tenancy of the defendant and seek for his ejectment. The trial Court instead of deciding the dispute from this stand point, wrongly dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiffs did not produce any title deeds to establish their title to the suit schedule property and that they failed to prove that the defendant was a tenant under them.
CRP No. 478 of 2017
Office is directed to draw a decree in terms of this
judgment.
Sd/JUDGE
VMB
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the ejectment suit for lack of title when the defendant admitted prior tenancy relationship.
Whether the plaintiff's claim for ejectment was maintainable based on succession via gift deed and admitted tenancy.
Whether the gift deed converted the defendant's lessee relationship to continue under the new owner.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
K.N. SHREYAS
K.N. TEJAS
K.N. YASHAS
DEEPACHAND JAIN
R. NATARAJ
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
