Allowed

Mr K a Padmanabha v. Mr Khudrathulla

Karnataka HC12 Sept 2024HRRP/3/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a revision petition challenging an order that stayed eviction proceedings pending the outcome of a suit to cancel a sale deed. The court held that the tenant cannot question the title of the subsequent purchaser once the tenancy relationship is established by operation of law, and dismissed the stay application.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition was allowed; the impugned order staying proceedings was quashed; the trial court was directed to restore the eviction petition and proceed on merits.

Mr K a Padmanabha Vs Mr Khudrathulla — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:37798 HRRP No. 03 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA HOUSE RENT REV. PETITION No.03 OF 2023

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MR K A PADMANABHA S/O LATE K.ANJANEYA SETTY AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, PROPRIETOR OF G.K.B. SILVERS, R/AT HOUSE NO.15, PATEL NARANASWAMAPPA LAYOUT, BEERSWARA NAGAR, CHUNCHAGHATTA, KONANAKUNTE POST, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGLAURU-560 062.

¶9

…PETITIONER (BY SRI SHIVAPRASAD FOR SRI S.M.ANEES AHMED, ADVOCATES)

¶10

AND:

¶11

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

¶12

MR KHUDRATHULLA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS

¶13

SMT.SHAMEENA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, W/O LATE KHUDRATHULLA,

¶14

MASTER MOHAMMED ZAINULLA AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, S/O LATE KHUDRATHULLA

¶15

BOTH ARE C/O AT SHOP NO.240, 1^ST FLOOR, H.T.M. GOLD SILVER POLISHING AND REPAIRS, BLOCK NO.9, NEW MUNICIPAL NO.240, SL.NO.106, RAJA MARKET, AVENUE ROAD,

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:37798 HRRP No. 03 of 2023

¶18

BENGALURU-560 002.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI MITHUN S K, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2)

¶21

THIS HRRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 46(1) OF THE KARNATAKA RENT ACT, 1999 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 04.11.2022 PASSED ON IA.XVI IN HRC.NO.22/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE CHIEF JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU, ALLOWING THE IA XVI FILED UNDER SECTION 43 OF KARNATAKA RENT ACT, 1999 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC.

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

Heard Sri Shivaprasad, for Sri S.M.Anees Ahmed, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri S.K.Mithun, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶25

Landlord-revision petitioner challenging the order passed

¶26

by the learned Chief Judge, Small Causes Court, Bengaluru, in HRC No.22/2019, allowing the application filed by the tenant under Section 43 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999.

¶27

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

¶28

Revision Petitioner-land lord claims that he has purchased the property from the erstwhile landlord by name Sri

¶29

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:37798 HRRP No. 03 of 2023

¶30

A.G.Lakshmana by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 28.03.2018. Admittedly, the respondent-tenant was a tenant under Lakshmana at an undisputed point of time. Soon after execution of the sale deed, by virtue of operation of law under Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act there is automatic attornment of tenancy.

¶31

The land lord-subsequent purchaser filed an eviction petition to evict the respondent-tenant from the premises by filing necessary application under Section 27(2)(a) and (r) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999.

¶32

The respondent-tenant appeared before the Court, admitted that he was a tenant under A.G.Lakshmana, but since A.G.Lakshmana has filed a suit in O.S.No.7041/2021 seeking cancellation of sale deed as against the subsequent purchaser who is the petitioner in the HRC petition, he disputed the landlord and tenant relationship by filing an application under Section 43 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999.

¶33

Learned Trial Judge accepted the contentions urged on behalf of the tenant and allowed the application filed under

¶34

¶35

NC: 2024:KHC:37798 HRRP No. 03 of 2023

¶36

Section 43 of the Karnataka Rent Act, and stopped further proceedings till the final disposal of O.S.No.7041/2021. Said order is assailed in the present revision petition.

¶37

Learned counsel for the revision petitioner, reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition, contended that the tenant has no right to dispute the title of the revision petitioner. Pendency of the suit between the revision petitioner and the erstwhile owner has got nothing to do insofar as the deciding the relationship between the revision petitioner and the respondent and sought for allowing the revision petition.

¶38

Per contra, Sri Mithun, learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned Order. He further contends that in the event the erstwhile owner-A.G.Lakshmana succeeds in the suit, the Order of eviction would be held as nullity and therefore, eviction petition was rightly stopped from further adjudication by the learned Trial Judge in the impugned Order and sought for dismissal of the revision petition.

¶39

Having heard the parties, this Court perused the material on record, meticulously.

¶40

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:37798 HRRP No. 03 of 2023

¶41

On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that the erstwhile land lord-A.G.Lakshmana has sold the property in favour of the revision petitioner by virtue of a registered sale deed. By operation of law, tenancy gets automatically attorned in favour of subsequent purchaser. Tenant therein cannot question the title of the subsequent purchaser. If A.G.Lakshmana succeeds in the suit, then there is option always available for the respondent to seek for restitution of his possession.

¶42

Under such circumstances, the application filed under Section 43 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 by the respondent ought to have been dismissed by the learned Trial Judge, having regard to the language employed in Section 43 of the Karnataka Rent Act and the scope of enquiry under Section 43 of the Karnataka Rent Act.

¶43

In the case on hand, since at an undisputed point of time, there was no dispute as to land lord and tenant relationship, tenant cannot now question the title of the revision petitioner who is the purchaser of the property by process known to law.

¶44

Accordingly, the following:

¶45

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:37798 HRRP No. 03 of 2023

¶46

ORDER

¶47

(i) The Revision Petition is allowed .

¶48

(ii) It is held that there exists landlord-tenant relationship between the revision petitioner and the respondent.

¶49

(iii) Learned Trial Judge is directed to restore the HRC No.22/2019 and proceed with the case in accordance with law on merits.

¶50

(iv) It is also observed that in the event there is a positive order in favour of the erstwhile landlord in O.S.No.7041/2021, tenant may seek appropriate relief against the erstwhile landlord.

¶51

(v) Parties shall appear before the Trial Court without further notice on 30^th September 2024.

¶52

Sd/(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE

¶53

kcm

¶54

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 55

Mr K a Padmanabha v. Mr Khudrathulla

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr K a Padmanabha v. Mr Khudrathulla

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

Sri Prasad G v Vs Smt Naveena Kumari

Bank of Baroda Vs Suman Dilip Kamath

Smt Vasantha Vs Sri Parameshwaran

Mr.Titto D Souza Vs Mr.Nicholas D Souza

Mr K Karunakar Bangera Vs Mr Calisth Cardoza

Mr. Venkatesh Vs the Station House Officer