Dismissed

Sri. a.v.Nagaraj v. Sri. Jeevithesh M.S

Karnataka HC5 Mar 2024WP/10306/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Tenants sought stay of eviction proceedings pending a specific performance suit claiming an agreement of sale ended the tenancy. Court held tenancy was admitted in writing and cannot be adjudicated in a specific performance suit; dismissed petition upholding orders refusing stay.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sri. a.v.Nagaraj Vs Sri. Jeevithesh M.S — Specific Performance | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:9265 WP No. 10306 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 10306 OF 2023 (HRC)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SRI. A V NAGARAJ S/O LATE A.VEERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS.

¶7

SMT. A V GUNASAGARI D/O LATE A.VEERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS.

¶8

SMT. A V ANASUYA DEVI D/O LATE A.VEERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS.

¶9

SMT. A V GAYATHRI DEVI D/O LATE A.VEERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS.

¶10

SRI. A V GANESH BABU S/O LATE A.VEERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS.

¶11

SMT. A V SAVITHRI DEVI Digitally signed by D/O LATE A.VEERAPPA, R HEMALATHA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS. Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA 7. SMT. A V SHARADA DEVI

¶12

SMT. A V SHARADA DEVI D/O LATE A.VEERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS.

¶13

SRI. A.V.SOMASHEKAR S/O LATE A.VEERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

¶14

ALL ARE RESIDING AT 695/1, NEW NO.46/D, B.B.GARDEN ROAD, FORT MOHALLA, MYSURU - 570 004.

¶15

…PETITIONERS

¶16

(BY SRI. SRINIVASA D C., ADVOCATE)

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:9265 WP No. 10306 of 2023

¶19

AND:

¶20

SRI. JEEVITHESH M.S S/O LATE M.S.SHIVASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.1036/6, SRI RAM PRASAD, SARVAJANIKA HOSTEL MAIN ROAD, VIDYARANYAPURAM, MYSURU-570 008.

¶21

…RESPONDENT

¶22

(BY SRI. JAGADEESH C M., ADVOCATE)

¶23

THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER ON IA NO 24 PASSED IN HRC NO 12/2013 DATED 13/01/2022 BY THE HONBLE VI ADDL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT MYSURU, VIDE ANNEXURE -G AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE ORDER PASSED IN REV. RENT NO 2/2022 DATED 30/03/2023 BY THE HONBLE II ADDL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU, VIDE ANNEXURE-H AS ILLEGAL AND VOID AND FURTHER ALLOW THE IA NO 24 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS VIDE ANNEXURE -E AND ETC.

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

ORDER

¶26

The respondent herein filed a petition under Section 27(e)(h)(i) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 (for short `Act, 1999') stating that the deceased husband of the respondent therein was a tenant of the subject premises, and after his death, his wife continued as a tenant of the subject premises, and the subject premises is required for self occupation.

¶27

The original respondent during her life time filed a written statement admitting the relationship of landlord and tenancy.

¶28

The original respondent filed an application under Section 43 of the Act, 1999 to stay all further proceedings stating that an agreement of sale dated 6.6.1986 was executed by the father of the respondent - landlord herein in favour of the husband of the original

¶29

¶30

NC: 2024:KHC:9265 WP No. 10306 of 2023

¶31

respondent, and the entire sale consideration was paid under the said agreement of sale, and the suit is filed for specific performance of the agreement of sale. Therefore, there is the dispute with regard to the relationship of landlord and tenancy.

¶32

The Trial Court dismissed the application stating that on perusal of the agreement, possession was not handed over to the husband of the respondent therein, and the rights with regard to the possession will be decided in the suit for specific performance. The order passed by the Trial Court was confirmed in revision filed before the learned District Judge.

¶33

The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the agreement of sale clearly establishes that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant which is evident from the agreement of sale, and outcome of the suit for specific performance will have a direct bearing in the eviction proceedings, and therefore, the proceedings before the Trial Court requires to be stayed till out come of the suit for specific performance.

¶34

Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the original respondent having admitted the relationship in the written statement, and in the absence of any clause in the alleged agreement of sale, that the husband of the original tenant was put in possession of the subject premises under the agreement of sale, the impugned order passed by the Trial Court does not warrant any interference, and sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶35

Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶36

¶37

NC: 2024:KHC:9265 WP No. 10306 of 2023

¶38

In the written statement filed, the original respondent had admitted the relationship of landlord and tenancy. Having admitted, an application was filed by the power of attorney i.e. son stating that an agreement of sale was entered into between the respondent and his father, and the relationship of landlord and tenant came to an end upon execution of the agreement of sale. Therefore, the dispute having seized before the Civil Court in OS No.654/2019, the proceedings be stayed till out come of the suit.

¶39

The original respondent in the written statement admitted the relationship. Perusal of the alleged agreement of sale, indicated that the husband of the original respondent admitted the relationship, and continued as a tenant, and was not put in possession of suit property under agreement of sale. The outcome of the suit for specific performance will not have any bearing on the petition filed by the respondent for evicting the petitioners, since the question of tenancy cannot be adjudicated in the suit for specific performance. Accordingly, the Trial Court and the Revisional Court have rightly passed the impugned orders. I do not find any illegality in the impugned orders. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶40

ORDER

¶41

The petition stands dismissed.

¶42

BKM

¶43

Sd/JUDGE

Sri. a.v.Nagaraj v. Sri. Jeevithesh M.S

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sri. a.v.Nagaraj v. Sri. Jeevithesh M.S

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Hotel Mallige Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Karnataka

Suryodaya Educational Trust Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri J Magesh Vs the Executive Engineer (v)

Gandhimathi a Vs State by

M S Jagadeesh Kumar Vs the Excise Commissioner in Karnataka

Razorpay Software Private Limited Vs Union of India