Karnataka High Court
Sri Imtiaz vs Sri M Keshavaraju on 27 February, 2023
-1-
CRP No. 495 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 495 OF 2015 (SC)
BETWEEN:
SRI. IMTIAZ
S/O SRI. DASTAGIR AHMED SHARIF,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/AT NO.6, 2ND CROSS,
KAVERINAGAR,
R.T. NAGAR POST,
BENGALURU-560 032.
AND ALSO
PROP. M/S A.V.N. COMPUTERS,
NO.1/1, 2ND CROSS, S.P. ROAD,
THIGALARPET, V.B.DIVISION,
BENGALURU-560002.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VEERANNA G. TIGADI, ADVOCATE)
Digitally
signed by AND:
SUMA
Location: 1. SRI. M. KESHAVARAJU
HIGH S/O LATE SRI. K. MUNIYAPPA,
COURT OF AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
KARNATAKA
2. SMT. C. VIJAYALAKSHMI
W/O SRI. M. KESHAVARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 ARE
RESIDING AT NO.20/1,
G.V. LAYOUT,
100 FT. RING ROAD,
EJIPURA,
BENGALURU-560 047
-2-
CRP No. 495 of 2015
3. KUM. C. BHARATHA
D/O SRI. K. MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 417, 9TH MAIN,
VIJAYANAGARA,
BENGALURU-560 040.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. C. PATTABI RAMAN AND SRI. V. MURALI PRASAD,
ADVOCATES BY PR AND PR ASSOCIATES, ADVOCATES FOR
RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3 (ABSENT))
THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 18 OF THE KARNATAKA
SMALL CAUSE COURTS ACT, 1964 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
DECREE DATED 07.07.2015 PASSED IN S.C.NO.2318/2011 ON THE
FILE OF THE VIII ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL
CAUSES, BANGALORE, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR EVICTION AND
DAMAGES.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner has challenged the correctness of the Judgment and decree dated 07.07.2015 passed by the VIII Additional Small Causes Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru, (henceforth referred to as the 'Trial Court') in S.C. No.2318/2011 by which it decreed the suit for ejectment of the petitioner from the suit schedule property. -3- CRP No. 495 of 2015
2. The parties shall henceforth be referred to as they were arrayed before the Trial Court.
3. The petitioner was the tenant / defendant while the respondents were the landlords / plaintiffs before the Trial Court.
4. The plaintiffs claimed to be the lawful owners of the suit property, they having purchased it in terms of a sale deed dated 09.04.2009 from Sri C. Balakrishna and his family members. The sale deed stood rectified on 16.09.2009. The defendant was a tenant in occupation of the aforesaid property under Sri. C. Balakrishna. The plaintiffs requested the defendant to vacate the premises as it was in a dilapidated condition. However, he requested the plaintiffs to permit him to occupy the premises until the Municipal Corporation granted permission to demolish the building. He agreed to pay monthly rent of Rs.3,500/- from May 2009 onwards. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant was a willful and chronic defaulter in payment of the agreed rent. Therefore, the plaintiffs terminated the tenancy in terms of a notice dated 06.06.2009. The said notice was duly served on the defendant and he gave a reply -4- CRP No. 495 of 2015 on 11.06.2009. The plaintiffs claimed that prior to purchase of the suit property, the defendant was introduced by their vendors as the tenant in occupation and that the defendant had requested time to vacate and handover the vacant possession of the suit property. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendant having acknowledged their ownership was denying the jural relationship with the instigation and inducement by Smt. Savithramma, whom he claimed to be his landlady. The plaintiffs claimed at the behest of Smt. Savitramma, a suit in O.S.No.2615/2009 was filed by Kum. B.Vanishree (daughter of Sri C. Balakrishna, one of the vendors of the plaintiffs) before XXXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore for partition and possession. However, since the defendant failed to quit and deliver the vacant possession of the petition premises even after receipt of the notice terminating the tenancy, a suit was filed for his ejectment and also for damages at the rate of Rs.150/- per day from 01.07.2009 till the date of filing of the suit and also for post litum damages at the rate of Rs.150/- per day.
5. The defendant contested the suit and claimed that he was not a tenant under the plaintiffs but was a tenant under -5- CRP No. 495 of 2015 Smt. C. Savithramma, the daughter of Smt. Jayalakshmamma, the erstwhile owner of the suit property and that he was inducted into the premises in the year 1983 on a monthly rent of Rs.500/- by her mother. He claimed that he continued to pay the rent to Smt. C. Savithramma till the date of filing of the suit by the plaintiffs.
6. Based on these rival contentions, the Trial Court framed the following points for consideration:
"1. Whether plaintiff proves that defendant is tenant of suit schedule being southern portion of the property bearing present Municipal New No.1 (Municipal No.17/1, old No.14, later numbered as
17) situated at 2nd Cross, S.P. Road, Thigalarpet, V.B. Division, Bangalore, as shown in the plaint schedule?
2. Whether plaintiff proves that the tenancy is duly terminated?
3. What order or decree ?"
7. The plaintiff No.1 was examined as PW.1 and he marked documents as Exs.P1 to P7. The special power of -6- CRP No. 495 of 2015 attorney holder of the defendant was examined as DW.1 and he marked documents as Exs.D1 to 11.
8. Based on the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court held that based on the rent receipts marked collectively as Ex.D9, the defendant could be claimed to be a tenant under Smt. C. Savithramma. In view of the admission of DW.1 and the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs, it held that the plaintiffs had made out a case for ejectment of the defendant and consequently, decreed the suit and directed the defendant to quit and deliver vacant possession of the suit schedule property within 90 days from the date of the decree.
9. Being aggrieved by the said Judgment and Decree, the present revision petition is filed.
10. Learned counsel for the defendant/petitioner submitted that the defendant contended in his written statement that he was a tenant under Smt. C. Savithramma and not plaintiffs. In order to establish the said contention, he had placed on record Ex.D9, which were the rent receipts issued by Smt. C. Savithramma. Therefore, he submitted that the Trial Court could not have ventured to decide whether the -7- CRP No. 495 of 2015 defendant was indeed a tenant under the vendors of the plaintiffs. He submitted that this question had to be exclusively decided by a Civil Court and not by the Trial Court. He submitted that there was a clog regarding title of the plaintiffs in as much as a suit in O.S. No.2615/2009 was filed by a daughter of Sri C. Balakrishna, for partition and therefore, the plaintiffs cannot claim to be the exclusive owners of the suit schedule property. He submitted that under Section 8 of the Karnataka Small Cause Courts Act, 1964 (for short, 'the Act of 1964') the suit was not maintainable and in this regard, he relied upon the judgment of a coordinate Bench of this Court in Laxminarayana Rao v. Janardhana Shettigara reported in ILR 1993 KAR 3204 and another judgment rendered by a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Anasuya v. J. Venkatesh (2015) 6 Kant LJ 306.
11. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 has remained absent though this petition was called twice in the day and therefore, this Court did not have the benefit of his arguments.
-8-CRP No. 495 of 2015
12. Be that as it may, I have considered the contentions urged by the learned counsel for the defendant and perused the records of the Trial Court and its Judgment. The records disclose that the suit was filed for ejectment of the defendant from the suit schedule property on the premise that the plaintiffs had lawfully purchased the property from Sri C. Balakrishna and his family members. In the written statement filed by the defendant before the Trial Court, he has indeed claimed to be a tenant under Smt. C. Savithramma, who was the sister of Sri C. Balakrishna. The Trial Court has perused the documents of title of the plaintiffs and also the admission by plaintiff No.1 in his evidence that Smt. C. Savithramma was the sister of Sri C. Balakrishna. It noticed that Ex.D9 were the rent receipts issued by Smt. Savitramma and held that these rent receipts were prior to the date of purchase of the suit property by the plaintiffs and therefore, were not credible. The evidence on record itself establishes that the plaintiffs after having purchased the suit schedule property had got their names entered into revenue records and also paid the property tax. The defendant did not seriously dispute the title of the plaintiffs but claimed that Smt. C. Savithramma, the sister of -9- CRP No. 495 of 2015 Sri C. Balakrishna, one of the vendors of the plaintiffs also had a share in the suit schedule property and therefore, the Trial Court did not have jurisdiction to decide this question. Ex.D9, which is the set of rent receipts issued allegedly by Smt. C. Savithramma was not proved in accordance with law by summoning Smt. C. Savithramma to the Court. Except these documents, there are no other material to establish the title of Smt. C. Savithramma to the suit schedule property. Ex.P3 which is a sale deed under which plaintiffs claimed title to the suit schedule property clearly indicates that a partition deed dated 06.09.2006 was entered between Sri C.Balakrishna and Smt.C. Savithramma and the same was duly registered in accordance with law and therefore, the contention of the defendant that he was a tenant under Smt. C. Savithramma was clearly an afterthought and an attempt made by the defendant to deny the lawful entitlement of the plaintiffs to the suit schedule property. The defendant did not establish how and when he came into possession of the suit property as a tenant under Smt. Jayalakshmamma and how he continued to pay the rent of the premises in question to Smt. C. Savithramma after the death of Smt.Jayalakshmamma.
- 10 -
CRP No. 495 of 2015Notwithstanding the same, the vendors of the plaintiffs succeeded to the suit schedule property in terms of the said partition deed. The Trial Court was therefore, justified in holding that the defendant failed to establish that he was not a tenant under the plaintiffs. The contention of the learned counsel for the defendant that a suit for ejectment where the disputed question of fact is raised, cannot be adjudicated upon by the Trial Court in view of Section 8 of the Act of 1964 is also liable to be rejected as a Court of Small Causes is entitled to consider a suit for ejectment where the property has been let out under lease or permitted to be occupied by written instrument or orally, and Section 9 of the Act of 1964 clearly bars filing of any suit before any Civil Court. It is only Court of Small Causes that is entitled to take cognizance of a suit for ejectment provided, provision of Section 8(2) of the Act of 1964 is complied with. The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the defendant on the judgments rendered by coordinate Bench/es of this Court in Laxminarayana Rao's case (supra) and Smt. Anasuya's case (supra), are clearly distinguishable on facts.
- 11 -
CRP No. 495 of 2015There is no merit in this revision petition and therefore, same is dismissed. The defendant is given six months time to quit and deliver vacant possession of the suit schedule property.
Sd/-
JUDGE SMA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38