Dismissed

Smt. Saraswathi v. Sri. B. Umesh Prabhu

Karnataka HC7 Aug 2024HRRP/4/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A tenant challenged concurrent findings of eviction based on bona fide requirement, disputing the landlord-tenant relationship after the landlord purchased the property via sale deed. The Court held attornment follows automatically and dismissed the revision petition, granting time to vacate until 30.09.2024.

What did the court decide?

Eviction order confirmed; petitioner granted time till 30.09.2024 to vacate and hand over premises.

Smt. Saraswathi Vs Sri. B. Umesh Prabhu — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:31733 HRRP No. 4 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA HOUSE RENT REV. PETITION NO. 4 OF 2023 (EVI)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. SARASWATHI, W/O MR. SUDHAMA, AGED 88 YEARS, R/AT NO.13-10-1302, VITOBHA TEMPLE ROAD, NEAR SRINGERI COMPOUND, MANGALURU – 575 001.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. RAJESH A., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

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

¶13

SRI. B. UMESH PRABHU, S/O RAGHURAM PRABHU, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT 11-11-1125, SRI VIJAYA DURGA, T.T. ROAD, MANGALURU – 575 001.

¶14

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI.G.RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY, ADVOCATE)

¶15

THIS HRRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 05.11.2022 PASSED IN RRP NO.5/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K. MANGALURU. DISMISSING THE RENT

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:31733 HRRP No. 4 of 2023

¶18

REVISION PETITION AND CONFIRMING THE ORDER DATED 31.08.2020 PASSED IN HRC NO.22/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., MANGALURU. D.K. ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 27(2) (r) OF KARNATAKA RENT ACT., 1999.

¶19

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

¶20

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

Heard Sri Rajesh A., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri G. Ravishankar Shastry, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶23

The tenant is in the revision challenging the order of eviction passed in HRC No.22/2017, confirmed in RRP No.5/2020.

¶24

The facts in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the revision petition are as under;

¶25

3.1 The respondent- land-lord filed a eviction petition under Section 27(2)(b) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for brevity) against the

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:31733 HRRP No. 4 of 2023

¶27

revision petitioner- tenant. The said petition was resisted by filing a detailed written statement by the revision petitioner. The learned trial Judge after considering the pleadings and the material evidence placed on record, raised five points. Except on the ground of arrears of rent, the eviction petition came to be allowed and two months time was granted to vacate and hand over the premises from 31.08.2020.

¶28

3.2 Being aggrieved by the same, the tenant filed a revision rent petition in RRP No.5/2020 on the file of the learned District and Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore. The learned District Judge after considering the rival contentions of the parties, dismissed the revision petition by the order dated 05.11.2022. Thereafter, the tenant is before this Court in the present revision.

¶29

Reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition, Sri Rajesh A., learned counsel for the revision petitioner vehemently contended that there was no legal relationship of land-lord and tenant and in the absence of any proof thereon, both the Courts recorded an order of eviction

¶30

¶31

NC: 2024:KHC:31733 HRRP No. 4 of 2023

¶32

against the revision petitioner which has resulted in miscarriage of justice and has sought for allowing the revision petition.

¶33

Per contra, Sri G. Ravishankar Shastry, supports the impugned judgment by contending that admittedly, the property is belonging to one Ramesh Kumar and the same is purchased by the respondent by virtue of a registered sale deed vide Ex.P1 and there was a automatic attornment of tenancy in view of Section 109 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and therefore, the tenant cannot question the legal relationship of land-lord and tenant and thus, sought for dismissal of the revision petition.

¶34

In reply, Sri Rajesh A., contended that when there exists a dispute with regard to legal relationship, the trial Court ought not to have evicted the revision petitioner from the Schedule Property and in this regard, he places reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Tribhuvanshankar Vs. Amrutlal reported in ( 2014) 2 SCC 788.

¶35

He also places reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajendra Tiwary Vs.

¶36

¶37

NC: 2024:KHC:31733 HRRP No. 4 of 2023

¶38

Basudeo Prasad & Anr. reported in (2002) 1 SCC 90 and

¶39

the relevant paragraph of the said judgment reads as under;

¶40

"16. In this case the reason for denial of the relief to the plaintiffs by the trial court and the appellate court is that the very foundation of the suit, namely, the plaintiffs are the landlords and the defendant is the tenant, has been concurrently found to be not established. In any event inquiry into title of the plaintiffs is beyond the scope of the court exercising jurisdiction under the Act. That being the position the impugned order of the High Court remanding the case to the first appellate court for recording finding on the question of title of the parties, is unwarranted and unsustainable. Further, as pointed out above, in such a case the provisions of Order VII Rule 7 are not attracted. For these reasons the aforementioned cases are of no assistance to the defendant. In this view of the matter we cannot but hold that the High Court erred in remanding the case to the first appellate court for determination of the title of the parties to the suit premises and for granting the decree under Order VII Rule 7.

¶41

18. In the result the judgment of the High Court under challenge is set aside. The suit of the plaintiffs (respondents) is dismissed. The appeal of the defendant (appellant) is allowed accordingly but in the circumstances of the case without costs."

¶42

¶43

NC: 2024:KHC:31733 HRRP No. 4 of 2023

¶44

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

¶45

On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that in the objection statement of the respondent filed before the trial Court to the main eviction petition, there is a mention that there was tenancy under Ramesh Kumar.

¶46

Admittedly, Ex.P1 is the sale deed, whereby Ramesh Kumar sold the property in favour of the respondentland-lord. When once there is a registered sale deed in favour of the respondent, by operation of law, there will be automatic attornment of tenancy. Therefore, the revision petitioner being the tenant under Ramesh Kumar, cannot claim that he is not tenant under the present land-lord. Therefore, the first ground on which, the eviction is sought to be resisted and the revision petition needs to be allowed cannot be countenanced in law.

¶47

There cannot be any dispute as to the principles of law enunciated in the aforesaid judgments relied on by learned counsel for the petitioner. But the facts of the present case and the pleadings available on record are altogether different from the facts involved in the aforesaid cases and as such, the

¶48

¶49

NC: 2024:KHC:31733 HRRP No. 4 of 2023

¶50

same are of not much raved in advancing the case of the revision petitioner to any extent.

¶51

Insofar as the ground with regard to arrears of rent is concerned, the land-lord did not choose to challenge dismissal of the eviction petition under Section 27(2)(a) of the Act. Therefore, same could not be of any consequences insofar as opposing the eviction order under Section 27(2)(b) and 27(2)(r) of the Act.

¶52

Suffice to say that there is a clear and categorical finding recorded by both the Courts with regard to the jural relationship and the ingredients to allow the eviction petition under Section 27(2)(p) and 27(2)(r) of the Act. Moreover, no rebuttal evidence is placed by the tenant with regard to the bonda-fide requirement of land-lord as the presumption is available in favour of the land-lord as to the bona-fide relationship.

¶53