Allowed

Smt Hasseena Begum v. Sri Syed Sibayutulla

Karnataka HC19 Sept 2024HRRP/3/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed revision petitions filed by a landlord challenging a trial court order that reopened an eviction case. The Court held that the trial judge erred in entertaining the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC without establishing that the tenant had deposited rent arrears, as required by the relevant Acts.

What did the court decide?

The Miscellaneous Petition under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC allowing restoration of the eviction case was set aside; the original eviction order stands confirmed.

Smt Hasseena Begum Vs Sri Syed Sibayutulla — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:38630 HRRP No. 3 of 2015 C/W HRRP No. 4 of 2015

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA HOUSE RENT REV. PETITION NO. 3 OF 2015

¶7

C/W

¶8

HOUSE RENT REV. PETITION NO. 4 OF 2015

¶9

IN HRRP No.3/2015

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

SMT HASSEENA BEGUM

¶12

W/O. LATE SRI M ABDUL LATEEF AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.8/1, 1^ST FLOOR

¶13

3^RD CROSS, LALBAGH FORT ROAD DODDAMAVALLI BANGALORE 560004

¶14

Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

SINCE DEAD

¶16

REPRESENTED BY HER LR'S

¶17

1(a) SMT.HINA KOUSER D/O LATE HASEENA BEGUM AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.19 GNAGAMMACHARI STREET NEW BANBOO BAZAR MOTHINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560002

¶18

1(b) SRI.MASOOD ALI S/O. LATE HASEENA BEGUM

¶19

¶20

NC: 2024:KHC:38630 HRRP No. 3 of 2015 C/W HRRP No. 4 of 2015

¶21

AND LATE ABDUL LATEEF AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.8/1 3^RD CROSS, LALBAGH FORT ROAD DODDAMAVALLI BANGALORE - 560004

¶22

1(C) SMT.SHAMSHEER BANU D/O. LATE HASEENA BEGUM AND LATE ABDUL LATEEF RESIDING AT NO.15/31 2^ND CROSS, CHANGAIAH COMPOUND KRISHNAPPA GARDEN, THILAKNAGAR BENGALURU - 560024

¶23

…PETITIONERS

¶24

(BY SRI. MANIAN K B S., ADVOCATE)

¶25

AND:

¶26

SRI SYED SIBAYUTULLA S/O SYED ABBAS AGED 50 YEARS PROPRIETOR M/S. SB TRANSPORT NO.8/1, 3^RD CROSS LALBAGH FORT ROAD DODDAMAVALLI BANGALORE 560 004

¶27

ALSO RESIDING AT NO.11/1, CONSERVANCY LANE BEHIND 1^ST CROSS (LBF ROAD) SUSHEELA ROAD, DODDAMAVALLI BANGALORE 560 004

¶28

…RESPONDENT

¶29

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:38630 HRRP No. 3 of 2015 C/W HRRP No. 4 of 2015

¶30

THIS HRRP IS FILED U/S 46(1) OF KARNATAKA HOUSE RENT ACT, AGAINST THE ORDER DT 6.12.2014 PASSED IN MISC.NO.15010/2014 ON THE FILE OF V ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, MACT, MAYOHALL UNIT, BANGALORE, ALLOWING THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION FILED UNDER ORDER 9 RULE 13 R/W SEC 151 OF CPC.

¶31

IN HRRP NO. 4/2015

¶32

BETWEEN

¶33

SMT HASSEENA BEGUM W/O. LATE SRI M ABDUL LATEEF AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.8/1, 1^ST FLOOR 3^RD CROSS, LALBAGH FORT ROAD DODDAMAVALLI BANGALORE 560004

¶34

SINCE DEAD

¶35

REPRESENTED BY HER LR'S

¶36

1(a) SMT.HINA KOUSER D/O LATE HASEENA BEGUM AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.19 GNAGAMMACHARI STREET NEW BANBOO BAZAR MOTHINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560002

¶37

1(b) SRI.MASOOD ALI S/O. LATE HASEENA BEGUM AND LATE ABDUL LATEEF AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.8/1 3^RD CROSS, LALBAGH FORT ROAD DODDAMAVALLI, BANGALORE - 560004

¶38

¶39

NC: 2024:KHC:38630 HRRP No. 3 of 2015 C/W HRRP No. 4 of 2015

¶40

1(C) SMT.SHAMSHEER BANU D/O. LATE HASEENA BEGUM AND LATE ABDUL LATEEF RESIDING AT NO.15/31 2^ND CROSS, CHANGAIAH COMPUND KRISHNAPPA GARDEN, THILAKNAGAR BENGALURU - 560024

¶41

...PETITIONERS

¶42

(BY SRI. MANIAN K B S., ADVOCATE)

¶43

AND:

¶44

SRI SYED SIBAYUTULLA S/O SYED ABBAS AGED 50 YEARS PROPRIETOR M/S. SB TRANSPORT NO.8/1, 3^RD CROSS LALBAGH FORT ROAD DODDAMAVALLI, BANGALORE 560 004

¶45

...RESPONDENT

¶46

THIS HRRP IS FILED U/S 46(1) OF KARNATAKA HOUSE RENT ACT, AGAINST THE ORDER DT 25.11.2014 PASSED IN MISC.NO.15010/2014 ON THE FILE OF COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BANGALORE, ORDERING THAT IAs FILED FOR RE-OPENING THE CASE AND TO RE-CALL PW-1 ARE DISMISSED.

¶47

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶48

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶49

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:38630 HRRP No. 3 of 2015 C/W HRRP No. 4 of 2015

¶50

ORAL ORDER

¶51

Heard Sri.Manian K B S, the learned counsel

¶52

appearing for the petitioners. None appears for the respondent.

¶53

These two Revision Petitions are filed by the land lord challenging the correctness of the order passed in Misc.No.15010/2014.

¶54

Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for the disposal of the case are as under:

¶55

The land lord filed an Eviction Petition in HRC.No.10018/2012. The said Eviction Petition on contest came to be allowed. The execution was also filed and by the orders of the Court, tenant was evicted from the premises. Thereafter, an application was filed under Order IX Rule 13 of Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'CPC') which was registered in Misc.No.15010/2014.

¶56

Learned trial Judge who adjudicated the matter, allowed the Miscellaneous Petition and set-aside the order

¶57

¶58

NC: 2024:KHC:38630 HRRP No. 3 of 2015 C/W HRRP No. 4 of 2015

¶59

passed in HRC No.10018/2012 and restored the Eviction Petition for further consideration.

¶60

Likewise, the order dated 25.11.2014, whereby the application filed by the land lord was dismissed to reopen the case and participate in the Miscellaneous proceedings.

¶61

The correctness of the said order being questioned by the land lord in these two Revision Petitions on the ground that the provisions of Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, was not complied while entertaining the Miscellaneous Petition filed by the tenant inasmuch as arrears of the rents were not deposited which is a pre-condition for entertaining their petition under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC.

¶62

In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioners invites the attention of this Court to Section 10 of the Karnataka Small Causes Court Act, 1964 and Section 25 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999. For the ready reference, those two provisions are extracted herein, which reads as under:

¶63

¶64

NC: 2024:KHC:38630 HRRP No. 3 of 2015 C/W HRRP No. 4 of 2015

¶65

"Section 10 of the Karnataka Small Causes Court Act, 1964

¶66

10. Application of the Code.—(1) The procedure prescribed in the Code shall, save in so far as is otherwise provided by the Code or by this Act, be the procedure followed in the Court of Small Causes in all suits cognizable by it, and in all proceedings arising out of such suits: Provided that an applicant,— (a) for an order to set aside a decree passed ex parte on grounds other than that summons in the suit was not duly served, or (b) for a review of judgment on grounds other than a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, shall, at the time of presenting his application, either deposit in the Court the amount due from him under the decree or in pursuance of the judgment, or give such security for the performance of the decree or compliance with the judgment as the Court may, on a previous application made by him in this behalf, have directed. (2) Where a person has become liable as surety under the proviso to sub-section (1), the security may be realised in the manner provided by section 145 of the Code.

¶67

Section 25 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999

¶68

25. Procedure to be followed by Controller and time limit for deciding cases generally.- (1) No order which prejudicially affects any person shall be made by the Controller under this Act without giving such

¶69

¶70

NC: 2024:KHC:38630 HRRP No. 3 of 2015 C/W HRRP No. 4 of 2015

¶71

person a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the order proposed to be made, and until his objection, if any, and any evidence that may be adduced in support of the same have been considered by the Controller. (2) The Controller shall, while holding enquiry in any proceeding before him, follow such procedure as may be prescribed. (3) All proceedings before the Controller shall ordinarily conclude within six months from the date of first appearance of the Respondent in response to the summons issued for his appearance in the case, or from the date on which the respondent is set experte: Provided that the Controller may extend the hearing of the case beyond six months for reasons to be recorded by him on each day of hearing. (4) In the case of an application under section 49, the controller shall commence the hearing of the application within seven days of the filing thereof and shall dispose off the same as per may be possible within thirty days of start of such hearing, unless for reasons to be recorded the controller adjourns the case beyond such time".

¶72

On bare reading of the above provisions, this

¶73

Court finds sufficient force in the arguments put-forth on behalf of the land lord that the learned trial Judge ought not

¶74

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:38630 HRRP No. 3 of 2015 C/W HRRP No. 4 of 2015

¶75

to have entertained the Miscellaneous Petition in the absence

¶76

of proof of payment of arrears of the rent by the tenant.

¶77

Therefore, the order passed by the learned trial Judge in allowing the Misc. No.15010/2014 and restoring the HRC No.10018/2012 for further consideration suffers from legal infirmity and against the aforereferred provisions of law.

¶78

Hence, the following:

¶79

ORDER

¶80

(i) The Revision Petition No.3/2015 is allowed .

¶81

(ii) The order passed in Misc. No.15010/2014 is hereby set-aside since the tenant has already vacated the premises, the order passed in Execution case, pursuant to HRC No.10018/ 2012 stands confirmed.

¶82