Dismissed

M/S Keshavlal and Company v. M/S Hajee K Abdul

Karnataka HC4 Dec 2023CRP/534/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision petition challenged a judgment ordering the petitioner-firm to quit and deliver vacant possession of leased premises to the respondent-plaintiff. The court dismissed the revision, upholding the ejectment judgment and ordering the petitioner to vacate within six months while paying arrears.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed; petitioners granted six months to quit and deliver vacant possession of the premises, subject to payment of arrears.

M/S Keshavlal and Company Vs M/S Hajee K Abdul — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:43821 CRP No. 534 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.534 OF 2018 (SC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

M/S. KESHAVLAL AND COMPANY, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM, UMBRELLA MERCHANT, D. NO.20-16-1067, OPP. GOODS SHED ROAD, BUNDER, MANGALURU-575 001 BY PARTNER KETAN VASANI

¶8

KETAN VASANI S/O. NARENDAR KUMAR VASANI, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, MANAGING PARTNER, M/S.KESHAVLAL AND COMPANY, D.NO.20-16-1067, OPP. GOODS SHED ROAD, BUNDER, MANGALURU-575 001

¶9

…PETITIONERS

¶10

(BY SRI. SANATHKUMAR SHETTY K., ADVOCATE)

¶11

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

AND:

¶13

M/S. HAJEE K. ABDUL KHADAR BAWA AND SONS, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM, P.B. NO.35, BAWA CHAMBERS, GOODS SHED ROAD, BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, ARIF BAWA, S/O.MOHIDIN BAWA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, H.D.31, HIS GRACE APARTMENTS, MARTIN PAIS ROAD, HAT HILL, MANGALURU-575 006 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. S. RAJASHEKAR , ADVOCATE)

¶14

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:43821 CRP No. 534 of 2018

¶15

THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 18 OF KARNATAKA SMALL CAUSE COURTS ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 06.09.2018 PASSED IN S.C.NO.11/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM., MANGALURU D.K. PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR VACANT POSSESSION AND MESNE PROFITS.

¶16

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

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The petitioner has challenged the judgment dated 06.09.2018 passed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge & CJM, Mangaluru, Dakshina Kannada, in S.C.No.11/2013, by which, the petitioner was ordered to quit and deliver vacant possession of the plaint schedule premises within three months from the date of the order.

¶19

For the sake of convenience, the parties shall

¶20

henceforth be referred as per their respective rank held before the Trial Court.

¶21

The petitioners were the defendants, while the respondent was the plaintiff before the Trial Court.

¶22

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:43821 CRP No. 534 of 2018

¶23

A suit for ejectment was filed in S.C.No.11/2013 before the Small Causes Court,

¶24

Mangaluru, contending that the suit property belonged to the plaintiff which was let out to the defendants, on a monthly rent of a sum of Rs.160/-. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants had fallen in arrears of rent from February, 2010 and onwards. Since the plaintiff claimed that it was in need of the petition premises for its own use and occupation, it got issued a notice dated 14.05.2013 terminating the tenancy of the defendants and called upon the defendants to quit and deliver the vacant possession of petition premises. Since the defendants failed to comply with the demand made in the notice, proceedings were initiated for eviction of the defendants.

¶25

The defendants contested the suit claiming that

¶26

they were carrying on the manufacture and sale of umbrellas in the petition schedule premises. They also contended that the petition premises measured less than 150 sq.ft. and the rent payable was Rs.160/- and

¶27

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:43821 CRP No. 534 of 2018

¶28

therefore the provisions of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 were alone applicable and the proceedings before the Small Cause Court could not have been initiated. They further contended that the plaintiff had transferred a larger portion of the land to a mosque for religious purpose and therefore, the plaintiff had no subsisting right, title or interest over the petition premises and therefore not entitled to the relief sought for.

¶29

Based on these contentions, the Trial Court framed the following points for consideration:

¶30

"1. Whether the plaintiff firm proves that the defendants are their tenants over the schedule premises on a monthly rent of Rs.160/-?

¶31

2. Whether the plaintiff firm proves that they requires the schedule premises for their use and occupation and defendants are liable to be surrendered the vacant possession of the schedule property?

¶32

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:43821 CRP No. 534 of 2018

¶33

3. Whether the court fees and jurisdiction is correct?

¶34

4. What order or decree?"

¶35

The plaintiff was examined as PW.1 and Exs.P1

¶36

to P7 were marked. The defendant No.2 was examined as DW.1, but he did not mark any documentary evidence.

¶37

Based on the oral and documentary evidence,

¶38

the Trial Court held that the plaintiff had proved that the defendants were tenants under it. It also held that the plaintiff had caused a notice of termination of tenancy on 14.05.2013 which was duly served on the defendants on 17.05.2013. Consequently, it held that there was a valid termination of tenancy and since the defendants did not quit and deliver vacant possession of the property, it held that the plaintiff is entitled to evict the respondents. Consequently, it allowed the petition and directed the defendants to quit and deliver vacant possession of the petition premises within three months.

¶39

¶40

NC: 2023:KHC:43821 CRP No. 534 of 2018

¶41

Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the defendants have filed this revision petition under Section 18 of the Karnataka Small Cause Courts Act, 1964.

¶42

The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the Small Cause Courts could not have gone into the questions that were raised by the defendants in the written statement. He submitted that Small Cause Courts is only entitled to consider a case of ejectment simpliciter and not when questions regarding the title of the plaintiff is urged. He contended that the petition premises is less than 150 sq.ft., and rate of rent is Rs.160/- per month and therefore, the defendants were protected against eviction and the plaintiff was bound to invoke the provisions of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999. He further contended that the petition premises was used for manufacturing activity, and it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to issue six months prior notice of the termination of the tenancy and that not having been done, there was no valid termination of lease and consequently, the Trial

¶43

¶44

NC: 2023:KHC:43821 CRP No. 534 of 2018

¶45

Court could not have exercised jurisdiction to direct the defendants to quit and deliver the vacant possession.

¶46

Per contra, the learned counsel for the plaintiff contended that there is no dispute regarding the title of the plaintiff and the contention of the defendants that some portion of the property was transferred to a mosque for religious purposes is not proved. He contends that a suit for ejectment has to be filed before the Small Cause Court subject to the pecuniary limits contained in Section 8 of the Karnataka Small Cause Courts Act. He contends that a mere denial of the title of the plaintiff is not sufficient to non-suit the plaintiff, as that is a question of fact that the defendants has to establish before the Trial Court. He submitted that defendants did not produce any documents to prove that the plaintiff had transferred the suit property to a mosque for religious purposes. He further contends that though the defendants claimed that the petition premises was used for manufacturing activity, except the oral evidence, no material evidence was placed

¶47

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:43821 CRP No. 534 of 2018

¶48

on record, in that regard. Therefore, the defendants were not entitled to six months prior notice of termination of the tenancy. He further contends that the premises measured more than 1500 sq.ft. and the contention of the defendants that the petition premises measured only 150 sq.ft. is without any basis and no evidence in that regard

¶49

is extracted from either PW.1 or proved by getting a Commissioner to inspect the property. He therefore contends that on all grounds, the defendants are not entitled to challenge the impugned judgment passed by the Trial Court.

¶50

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the defendants and the learned counsel for the plaintiff. I have also perused the records of the Trial Court as well as the judgment of the Trial Court.

¶51

The fact that the defendants were inducted into the petition premises by the plaintiff is not seriously disputed. Therefore, the equitable principle of law that

¶52

9 - NC: 2023:KHC:43821 CRP No. 534 of 2018

¶53

once a tenant always a tenant is applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. If the tenancy is admitted and if an action is brought to evict such tenant, such action shall be initiated either before the Small Cause Courts under the Karnataka Rent Act, if the Act is applicable and if the Karnataka Rent act is not applicable, such, proceedings are to be initiated before the Karnataka Small Cause Court. The jurisdiction of a Small Cause Court to entertain an action to evict a tenant is contained in Section 8 and Schedule (I) of the Karnataka Small Cause Courts Act.

¶54

A perusal of the Schedule (I) of the Karnataka Small Cause Courts Act, makes it clear that every suit for ejectment, subject to a pecuniary jurisdiction of a Small Cause Court has to be tried by the Small Cause Court only and no other Court. In the case on hand, since the ownership of the plaintiff is not much in dispute and since the defendants have not established that the plaintiff had transferred the petition property during the pendency of

¶55

10 -

¶56

NC: 2023:KHC:43821 CRP No. 534 of 2018

¶57

the proceedings, it cannot be held that the Small Cause Court was not entitled to decide the dispute, on the ground that the plaintiff had lost title to the property. As a matter of fact, no evidence is placed on record to indicate that the plaintiff had relinquished its title in the petition premises in favour of any person, therefore, he continued to be the landlord of the petition premises and the defendants continued to be tenant under the plaintiff.

¶58

In so far as the contention urged by the petitioners that the petition premises measured less than 150 sq. ft. and therefore, the provisions of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 is alone applicable, a perusal of the records does not disclose that the defendants had taken any steps to prove this contention. Except the self serving statement of the defendants that the petition premises measured less than 150 sq.ft., no steps were taken by the defendants to get the property physically measured. On the contrary, when a suggestion was put to PW.1, that the petition premises measured less than 150 sq.ft. he stated that it

¶59

11 -

¶60

NC: 2023:KHC:43821 CRP No. 534 of 2018

¶61

measured more than 1500 sq.ft. The cross-examination of DW.1 indicates that the premises measured more than 150 sq.ft. and therefore, the provisions of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 were clearly not applicable to the case. Therefore even on this ground, the defendants were not entitled to challenge the impugned judgment of the Trial Court.

¶62

In so far as the last contention urged that the plaintiff was bound to issue a six months prior notice of termination of the tenancy, since the defendants had undertaken manufacturing activity in the premises, this too was not proved at the trial and no material evidence was produced to establish that the defendants were undertaking a manufacturing activity. Even otherwise, there is no written lease between the plaintiff and defendants and therefore, even if the defendants were undertaking a manufacturing activity, it had to be construed as a month to month tenancy and as the suit is filed after the expiry of a month from the date of

¶63

12 -

¶64

NC: 2023:KHC:43821 CRP No. 534 of 2018

¶65

termination of tenancy. Therefore, it cannot be held that the suit was premature and consequently, all the contentions urged by the petitioners/defendants do not merit consideration in this revision petition.

¶66

Consequently, this petition lacks merit and is dismissed.

¶67

The petitioners are granted six months time to quit and deliver vacant possession of the petition premises, subject to paying the arrears of rent, if any, and continues to pay the rent as agreed upon, till vacating the premises in question.

¶68

Sd/JUDGE

¶69

¶70

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21

M/S Keshavlal and Company v. M/S Hajee K Abdul

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Keshavlal and Company v. M/S Hajee K Abdul

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

Mr M R Jayaram Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Smt. Puttamma Vs Sri. Suresh Hegde

Prakash Gangappa Badiger Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Tarun P Vs Sri Maruthi

Sri.S.Lokesh Prabhu Vs Ms.Nikhita M

Sri. Krishnamurthy Subramanya Vs Smt Yogeetha B S