Allowed

Sri v. Ranganatha Shetty v Smt. M Kamala Bai

Karnataka HC23 Sept 2024HRRP/8/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Landlord's second revision against dismissal of an eviction petition filed on grounds including obstruction of passage and bonafide requirement. The original tenant died pending revision. The High Court allowed the revision solely under Section 5, granting legal representatives possession until five years from death, subject to rent payment.

What did the court decide?

Revision allowed; legal representatives entitled to possession until 26.10.2025 subject to payment of rents; thereafter landlord may execute order for possession.

Sri v Ranganatha Shetty Vs Smt. M Kamala Bai — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:39290 HRRP No. 8 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA HOUSE RENT REV. PETITION NO. 8 OF 2021 (EVI)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI V RANGANATHA SHETTY S/O K VENKATARANGA SHETTY AGE ABOUT 63 YEARS RESIDENT OF VIJAYALAKSHMI NILAYA, VARADARAJ COMPLEX 2^ND CROSS, GANDHI BAZAR NAGAPPANAKERI SHIVAMOGGA CITY – 577202

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI MURALI N, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

SMT. M KAMALA BAI SINCE DECEASED BY HER LR’S

¶12

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

¶13

SRI JAYARAMA S/O KALOJI RAO AGE : MAJOR

¶14

SRI JATESHA S/O KALOJI RAO AGE : MAJOR

¶15

SMT MANJULA D/O KALOJI RAO AGE : MAJOR

¶16

SMT RATNA D/O KALOJI RAO AGE :MAJOR

¶17

C/O SRI VARDARAJ COMPLEX

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC:39290 HRRP No. 8 of 2021

¶20

2^ND CROSS, GANDHI BAZAR, NAGAPPANAKERI SHIVAMOGGA CITY - 577 202

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI VINAYAKA.V.S, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1, R4 –SERVED; R3 SERVED THROUGH PAPER PUBLICATION)

¶23

THIS HRRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 10.01.2020 PASSED IN R.R.NO.4/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, SHIVAMOGGA, DISMISSING THE REVISION PETITION AND CONFIRMING ORDER AND DECREE DATED 09.02.2015 PASSED IN H.R.C.NO.2/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE C/C PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SHIVAMOGGA, DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 27(2) (r) AND (m) OF KARNATAKA RENT ACT. 1999.

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

Heard Sri Murali N., learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri Vinayaka V.S., learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

¶28

Unsuccessful landlord has challenged the order dated 09.02.2015, on the file of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC.,

¶29

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:39290 HRRP No. 8 of 2021

¶30

Shivamogga and the order dated 10.01.2020, on the file of II Additional Sessions Judge, Shivamogga.

¶31

Parties are referred to as landlord and the tenant

¶32

for the sake of convenience as per their original ranking before the Trial Court.

¶33

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

¶34

Landlord presented a petition under Section 27 (2) (r) and (m) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, contending that he is the owner of the property and the respondent is a tenant in respect of the petition premises on a monthly rent of Rs.2000/-commencing from 1^st day of every English calender month and ending with the last day of said month. Petitioner holds security deposit in a sum of Rs.50,000/-, which was reimbursable immediately after respondent handing over the vacant possession of the property in good and tidy condition.

¶35

Respondent has been inducted as a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.1000/- per month and it was increased from time to time and as on the date of present revision petition, the rate of rent is Rs.2000/-.

¶36

¶37

NC: 2024:KHC:39290 HRRP No. 8 of 2021

¶38

It is contention of the petitioner that there was an obstruction in the common passage by the tenant and despite warning with the tenant there was no removal of obstruction.

¶39

Landlord is running a business in sweets and general items under the trade name ‘United Traders’ and therefore, he wanted to occupy the premises by evicting the respondent and expand his business.

¶40

It is also contended that the tenant did not heed the request made by landlord and therefore petition was filed.

¶41

After service of summons, respondent entered appearance and contended that both the grounds on which the eviction as sought for is not applicable to the landlord and the landlord is interested in only selling the property to some third party and therefore, sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶42

Learned Trial Judge after due trial dismissed the eviction petition.

¶43

Aggrieved by the same, landlord filed a revision petition before the District Court, Shivamogga. Learned Judge in the First Revisional Court after securing the records heard the parties and dismissed the revision petition by order dated 10.01.2020.

¶44

¶45

NC: 2024:KHC:39290 HRRP No. 8 of 2021

¶46

Thereafter, the landlord is before this Court in this second revision.

¶47

At the outset Sri Murali N., learned counsel for the revision petitioner insisted the notice of the Court that the original tenant died on 26.10.2020. He has filed the death certificate along with the memo to establish the said fact. Accordingly, Sri Murali submits that irrespective of the merits of the matter, by virtue of Section 5 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, the tenant is ordered to be vacated from the premises after the period of five years and sought for allowing the revision petition on the said ground.

¶48

Sri Vinayaka, learned counsel representing the legal representatives of the tenant, did not dispute the fact that the original tenant died on 26.10.2020.

¶49

Therefore, this Court without addressing the other issues on the merits of the matter in regard to the grounds urged in the eviction petition is of the considered opinion that granting of time upto 26.10.2025 for the tenant to vacate the premises in view of the Section 5 of the Karnataka Rent Act, would meet the ends of justice.

¶50

¶51

NC: 2024:KHC:39290 HRRP No. 8 of 2021

¶52

For ready reference Section 5 of the Karnataka Rent

¶53

Act is culled out here under which reads as under:

¶54

“5. Inheritability of tenancy.

¶55

(1) In the event of death of a tenant, the right of tenancy shall devolve for a period of five years from the date of his death to his successors in the following order, namely:-

¶56

(a) spouse;

¶57

(b) son or daughter or where there are both son and daughter both of them;

¶58

(c) parents;

¶59

(d) daughter-in-law, being the widow of his predeceased son:

¶60

Provided that the successor has ordinarily been living or carrying on business in the premises with the deceased tenant as a member of his family up to the date of his death and was dependent on the deceased tenant:

¶61

Provided further that a right to tenancy shall not devolve upon a successor in case such successor or his spouse or any of his dependent son or daughter is owning or occupying a premises in the local area in relation to the premises let.

¶62

(2) If a person, being a successor mentioned in subsection (1), was ordinarily living in or carrying on business in the premises with the deceased tenant but

¶63

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:39290 HRRP No. 8 of 2021

¶64

was not dependent on him on the date of his death, or he or his spouse or any of his dependent son or daughter is owning or occupying a premises in the local area in relation to the premises let to which this Act applies, such successor shall acquire a right to continue in possession as a tenant for a limited period of one year from the date of death of the tenant; and, on the expiry of that period, or on his death, whichever is earlier, the right of such successor to continue in possession of the premises shall become extinguished.”

¶65

On bare perusal of the above provision, it is crystal clear that the present legal representatives who are normally dependent on Smt. M. Kamalabai, who was the original tenant are entitled to remain in the possession of the property for a period of five years from the date of death of Smt. M. Kamalabai being 26.10.2020.

¶66

Therefore, the following:

¶67

ORDER

¶68

(i) Revision Petition is allowed.

¶69

(ii) Taking note of the fact that the original tenant died on 26.10.2020, as per Section 5 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, the legal representatives of the original tenant namely -

¶70

NC: 2024:KHC:39290 HRRP No. 8 of 2021

¶71

¶72

Smt. M. Kamalabai, are entitled to remain in the possession of the petition premises till 26.10.2025, subject to payment of rents, as and when it accrues.

¶73

(iii) Thereafter, if the legal representatives of the original tenant do not vacate the premises, landlord is at liberty to execute this order.

¶74

(iv) No order as to costs.

¶75

Sd/(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE

¶76

¶77

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33

Sri v. Ranganatha Shetty v Smt. M Kamala Bai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri v. Ranganatha Shetty v Smt. M Kamala Bai

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

R Rekha Vs Jayaramaiah

Sri. Ramu Vs Smt. Zeenathunnisa

Vimala Manne Vs Sarojamma

Smt. Devamma Vs Swamy

Sri T Ramanjani Vs Sri M P Pradeep Kumar

Mr Mohamed Inayathulla Vs Mr Nazeer Pasha