Allowed

Mr N Sunder v. Mr P v Mohan

Karnataka HC19 Aug 2024HRRP/30/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Landlord's revision against partial rejection of his eviction petition. The High Court held that a co-owner can maintain an eviction petition, set aside the trial court's contrary reasoning, allowed the petition in toto subject to the result of the pending suit among co-sharers, and granted time to vacate.

What did the court decide?

Eviction petition allowed in toto; possession directed, held in trust for co-owners subject to O.S.No.15734/2003; time till 15.09.2024 to vacate on payment proof and undertaking.

Mr N Sunder Vs Mr P v Mohan — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:33225 HRRP No. 30 of 2017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶5

HOUSE RENT REV. PETITION NO.30 OF 2017

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MR N SUNDER S/O LATE NATESHAN, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, PRESENTLY R/AT NO.168/4, SEPPINGS ROAD, CIVIL STATION, BENGALURU-560001

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI S G BHAGAVAN, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

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

¶12

MR P V MOHAN S/O LATE VENKOBA RAO, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, PRESENTLY OF SHOP NO.4, NO.168, (GROUND FLOOR) SEPPINGS ROAD, SHIVAJINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 001

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI K.NARAYANA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT)

¶15

THIS HRRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 46(1) OF K.R.ACT 1999 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 14.2.2017 PASSED IN H.R.C NO.10039/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE XV ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND XXIII ACMM, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 27(2) (r) OF KARNATAKA RENT ACT., FOR EVICTION HOLDING THAT THE PETITIONER IS ONLY ENTITLED TO RECEIVE RENTS AND REJECTING THE PETITION HOLDING THAT THE PETITIONER IS NOT ENTITLED FOR RELIEF OF DELIVERY OF VACANT POSSESSION OF THE PETITION SCHEDULE PROPERTY.

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:33225 HRRP No. 30 of 2017

¶18

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

¶19

ORAL ORDER

¶20

Heard Sri S.G. Bhagavan, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri K. Narayana, learned counsel for the respondent/tenant.

¶21

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

¶22

An eviction petition came to be filed by the revision petitioner claiming that he is the owner of the property and sought to evict the respondent – P.V. Mohan in HRC No.10039/2012.

¶23

Learned Judge in the Trial Court, after noting that there is a dispute as to the title inasmuch as the revision petitioner is not the sole owner of the suit property, allowed the application in part and respondent was directed to pay the arrears of rent at the rate of Rs.1600/- per month from the date of termination of notice till the date of the order deducting the amount which has already been received.

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:33225 HRRP No. 30 of 2017

¶25

Respondent/tenant was directed to pay the arrears of rent within three months from the date of the order. Failing which, the petitioner is entitled to recover same in accordance with law.

¶26

However, it was further directed that the petitioner is not entitled for the relief of delivery of vacant possession of the petition property.

¶27

Being aggrieved by the same, land lord is before

¶28

this Court.

¶29

Sri S.G. Bhagavan, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition contended that it is the settled principles of law and requires no emphasis that a co-owner can maintain a eviction petition.

¶30

The same is opposed by the counsel for respondent stating that a co-owner cannot maintain a eviction petition, especially when there is a dispute and a pending suit among the other sharers in respect of the suit property and in that regard, he placed on record the pending proceedings in O.S.No.15734/2003, now pending on the file of Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru, Mayo Hall (CCH58).

¶31

¶32

NC: 2024:KHC:33225 HRRP No. 30 of 2017

¶33

Having heard the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that the co-owner can maintain the revision petition, subject to the result of the other sharers in O.S.No.15734/2003.

¶34

So also the payment of the rent by the tenant to any one of the co-owners, the same shall also be the subject matter of enquiry in O.S.No.15734/2003, under Order 20 Rule 18 CPC.

¶35

With that observation, the reasoning recorded by the learned Trial Judge that a co-owner cannot maintain the eviction petition needs to be set aside. Consequently, the eviction petition needs to be allowed in toto .

¶36

Accordingly, following:

¶37

ORDER

¶38

(i) Revision petition is allowed.

¶39

(ii) The revision petition filed by the revision petitioner in HRC No.10039/2012, on the file of XV Additional Judge and XXIII ACMM Court of Small Causes, Mayo Hall Unit Bengaluru, is allowed in toto .

¶40

(iii) It is clarified that the possession recovered by the revision petitioner as a co-owner would be

¶41

¶42

NC: 2024:KHC:33225 HRRP No. 30 of 2017

¶43

held by the revision petitioner in trust for and on behalf of all other co-owners, subject to the final result in O.S.No.15734/2003.

¶44

(iv)

¶45

Likewise, the payment of rent, if any, pleaded by the respondent to any one of the co-owners shall also be subject matter of enquiry before the Trial Court in O.S.No.15734/2003.

¶46

(v) With regard to the apportionment of the rent etc., parties are at liberty to make necessary application in the pending Miscellaneous First Appeal before this Court.

¶47

(vi) Time is granted for the respondent/tenant to vacate and hand over the petition premises to the revision petitioner till 15^th of September 2024, subject to filing of proof of payment of rent and the affidavit of undertaking that he would voluntarily vacate and hand over the premises to the revision petitioner on or before 15^th of September 2024.

¶48

Sd/(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE

¶49

MR, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 60

Mr N Sunder v. Mr P v Mohan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr N Sunder v. Mr P v Mohan

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

Syed Sadiq Ahamed Vs Amthul Basheer

N. Bhupalraj Vs Sri. Vikram Basha Khan

Sri Chikkeeregowda Vs Sri Doddeeregowda

M/S Punjab Handlooms Vs Rai Bahadur Arcot Narrian Swamy

Sri. T. D. Basappa Vs Smt. B.B. Leela @ Leelavathi

Sri. H. Krishnappa Vs Sri. K. Nagaraja