Karnataka High Court
Sri Karpanammal Temple Trust vs Sri Ravi on 6 June, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:19773
HRRP No. 120 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
HOUSE RENT REVISION PETITION NO.120 OF 2014 (EVI)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI KARPANAMMAL TEMPLE TRUST
(SRI MARIAMMAN TEMPLE TRUST)
AT NO.77, HAINES ROAD
NEHRUPURAM, BANGALORE-560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS
GENERAL SECRETARY
SRI R. THULASILINGAM
AGED 54 YEARS, S/O A. RAMAMURTHY.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI JAGADISH BALIGA N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI RAVI
Digitally AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
signed by V S/O LATE WILLIAM THOMAS
MANJUSHA
BAI NO.74/1, 5TH CROSS
NEW POTTERY TOWN EXTENSION
Location:
High Court BANGALORE-560 046.
of Karnataka ...RESPONDENT
[BY SRI S. SHIVA PRASAD, ADVOCATE (ABSENT)]
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 46(1) OF
KARNATAKA RENT ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION
AND THEREBY SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 04.09.2014 IN
HRC NO.10017/2012 ON THE FILE OF XV ADDITIONAL SMALL
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:19773
HRRP No. 120 of 2014
CAUSES JUDGE (SCCH.19), BANGALORE AND THEREBY ALLOW
THE PETITION AS PRAYED FOR ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING,
THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 04.09.2014 passed by the Court of XV Additional Small Causes Judge, Bengaluru in HRC No.10017/2012, the petitioner therein has preferred this revision petition.
2. The petitioner is a trust which is managing the affairs of one Karpanammal Temple. There are certain shops in the said temple complex and on the ground that one of the shops was leased in favour of the father of the respondent herein and after his demise, the respondent is continuing as a tenant, that he is not paying rents regularly and on the said grounds, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 27(2)(a), (p), (q) and (r) of the Karnataka Rent Act before the Court of Small Causes in Bengaluru and -3- NC: 2024:KHC:19773 HRRP No. 120 of 2014 sought eviction of the respondent from the suit schedule property with recovery of rents.
3. The respondent filed his objections. He has contended that though the property exists in the temple premises, his father was put in possession of the same by the then President of the trust by name Pandian and that he was not inducted as a tenant but was allowed to occupy the premises and continue to live over there. It is further submitted that after the demise of his father, the respondent is continuing to live over there. He has denied jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the respondent. He has further prayed that the petition should be dismissed.
4. The petitioner, to prove its case, examined one witness as PW.1 and got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P8. The respondent has examined two witnesses as RW.1 and RW.2 and got marked one document as Ex.R1. -4-
NC: 2024:KHC:19773 HRRP No. 120 of 2014
5. Based on the pleadings and the evidence let in, the trial court has framed the following points for consideration:
"1. Whether the petitioner proves that there exist jural relationship of landlord and tenant in between Petitioner's trust and respondent?
2. Whether the Petitioner further made out the case that the Respondent is very irregular in paying rents and he is due from April 2011?
3. Whether the petitioner proves that they are the entitled for the relief of eviction under section 27(2) (a) (p) & (q) of Karnataka Rent Act?
4. What order?"
It has answered the same as follows:
"Point no.1 : In Negative
Point no.2 : In Negative
Point no.3 : Not Entitle
Point no.4 : As per final orders."
The trial court has dismissed the petition of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition is filed.
6. The case of the petitioner is that it has produced adequate evidence to show that the property belongs to -5- NC: 2024:KHC:19773 HRRP No. 120 of 2014 the petitioner/trust, that the father of the respondent was inducted as a tenant and that the respondent has committed default in payment of rents and that the property is required by the temple trust for its bona fide use and occupation and that the trial court failed to appreciate the same correctly and has dismissed the petition erroneously.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent has remained absent.
8. The question that arises for consideration in the instant revision petition is whether the trial court appreciated the evidence and the pleadings placed before it properly or erroneously?
9. The petitioner in its petition has pleaded that it is the landlord who owns the suit schedule property, that the property was leased in favour of the father of the respondent and that after demise of the father of the respondent, the respondent is in possession of the same as a tenant and that he has committed default in payment -6- NC: 2024:KHC:19773 HRRP No. 120 of 2014 of the rents. The General Secretary of the trust has been examined as PW.1. He has reiterated the averments made in the petition in his examination-in-chief. The following documents have been marked on behalf of the petitioner before the trial court:
"Ex.P.1 : Notarized Copy of Trust Deed Ex.P.2 : Legal Notice dated 14.12.2011 Ex.P.3 : Post Receipt Ex.P.4 : Post Acknowledge Ex.P.5 : Reply Notice Ex.P.6 : Notarized Copy of Schedule Ex.P.7 : Copy of Letter Ex.P.8 : Copy of Agreement."
10. The respondent in paragraph no.3 of his objections statement has submitted as under:
"3. The averments made in para 3 of the petition is false and the petitioner is put to strict proof of the same and the respondents father during 1984 put in possession by one late pandian who was the president at the time."
11. Further, paragraph no.5 of the affidavit of the respondent submitted as chief examination reads as under:
"5. I further submits that my father was put in the petition schedule premises during the year 1984 by one late Pandian who was the president at that time after the -7- NC: 2024:KHC:19773 HRRP No. 120 of 2014 demise of my father I continuously occupying the petition schedule premises without payment of any rent and I used to donate to the temple for the development purpose only every year during the time temple festival."
12. Further, the respondent does not deny that the property belongs to the temple. Except bare denial of the authority of the trustees to the petitioner trust, no evidence to the contrary is produced by the respondent. Whereas, the petitioner has produced notarised copy of the trust deed to show that they are managing the affairs of the temple trust.
13. The aforementioned trust deed as well as the admissions made by the respondent establishes that the property belongs to the trust and the father of the respondent got into the property through the trust.
14. The case of the petitioner is that trust is the landlord and the respondent is a tenant. They have produced a copy of the lease deed which is disputed by the respondent. When the respondent states that he was put in possession of the property by the President of the trust, -8- NC: 2024:KHC:19773 HRRP No. 120 of 2014 he is required to state in what capacity he was put in possession of the property. He cannot merely state that he is in permissive possession. It is not that he is doing any services to the temple and the trust is not under any obligation to give the property to his father. There is a clear averment on the part of the petitioner that the father of the respondent was inducted as a tenant by way of an unregistered lease. Under the given peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, on probabilities, it has to be held that the petitioner/trust has been able to discharge its burden of proving that the respondent's father was inducted as a tenant. Further, the respondent in the cross examination has admitted that his father was paying money to the temple by putting the same in the hundi (donation box). He has not denied the suggestion that money was not being paid to the temple. All these facts go to show that the father of the respondent was inducted as a tenant in the premises. The trial court failed to appreciate the same.
-9-
NC: 2024:KHC:19773 HRRP No. 120 of 2014
15. Once the respondent admits that the property belongs to the temple trust, the onus is on him to state in what capacity he is staying in the property, which he has failed to do so. He is required to explain the same. Whereas, the petitioner is able to discharge the burden that it is the owner of the property and the respondent is a tenant under it.
16. Once the petitioner is able to establish that it is the owner of the property concerned, the respondent is liable to pay the rents agreed upon. The case of the petitioner is that the agreed rent is Rs.450/- per month. The respondent admits that he does not pay any rents to the petitioner. Further, the petitioner in the pleadings and the evidence have stated that they require the property for the benefit of the temple, which is believable.
17. Further, the petitioner has issued a notice to the respondent as contemplated under Section 27(2)(a) of the Karnataka Rent Act as well as the Transfer of Property Act. Under the circumstances, the judgment of the trial court
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:19773 HRRP No. 120 of 2014 has to be considered perverse and bad in law and the same is liable to be set aside. However, the petitioner has not adduced any evidence to show that it is entitled to rent @ Rs.2,000/- per month for the property in question. Thus, the points for consideration framed by the trial court are held in the affirmative.
18. Hence, the following:
ORDER
(i) The revision petition is allowed;
(ii) The judgment dated 04.09.2014 passed by the Court of XV Additional Small Causes Judge, Bengaluru in HRC No.10017/2012 is hereby set aside;
(iii) The respondent is hereby directed to vacate the suit schedule property and handover the same to the petitioner within a period of three months from today;
(iv) The respondent is also directed to pay arrears of rent from April 2011 till the date of vacating the premises at Rs.450/- per month;
(v) Office is directed to draw decree accordingly.
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:19773 HRRP No. 120 of 2014
(vi) Registry is directed to send back the records to the trial court forthwith;
(vii) Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE hkh.