Karnataka High Court
G Kaluram vs K G Shivashankar on 7 March, 2008
Equivalent citations: AIR 2008 (NOC) 2328 (KAR.) = 2008 (4) AIR KAR R 101, 2008 (4) AIR KAR R 101
Author: K.Ramanna
Bench: K.Ramanna
] ..... ..
tifl-LII-I rune-'nu-s-an urn
DATED THIS THE 7:» DAY , 4 u
BEFORE
Kl' "E7 lU"|l<Nfl'l'BliA fr'? ~
THE Howaur MR.J!J'S$IGEVK._RAMAI§I'Méj } A
BETWEEy_: % " VA "
G Kaluram h. '-
s,m... W %
Rfo !!c.{-.'.4,+'3?,i'! . °
6:hC1oss(o1di ' "
3?*'*C1ossinmyj*i:__ " '
Gayatlniblaggrj.
. %V ~ Adv.)
fife. lat;
_56-Vyiiea, rig :~12:.34,I37
aw
6"' Cioss_(oid}§
3'4' Clbfiii (mew)
.. '»-r_)......;..,..1.......rn
15"': 1.
Petitioner
an-ma' anni-
Dngcn-up' __
In I.\hfl!RIl.I.bI.iu--I-ll:
(By Sr} 3 Sizanicamchar, Adv for Cir
Sri N K Kantharaju, Adv)
/{O,,//
//VJ
L
This petition is filed under Section 46(1){,Ho:'?fKfé}Aoe,
against the order dated 2.1-.3~2oo-5 pas%d
No.l11/04 on the file of u Addismau CoajaoooVV.Judg-og
Bangalore; a.Lr.w.I.rLng the iiiiifior 2_7('§E}(a)(xj of "
K.R.Act for eviction.
This petition hav1n' g been Iforiioziiiczgo
or; for pronouncement of o1dg=::rs<_ this the made the: , V *
following:
0-. ;)...r.«i;.i:--_
This revision potiuo-o_ the order
dated 21-3-2006' by'i*;ftic"Iv!i::J|\i1"c}li£-Rahal! goo.-_=c.-o Judge,
Bangalore 'i-.?.b.c.-eh}; the e-vfitiofi
pcfitionv " "by fiieri under ficction
2?{2)(eI.}&{z'§ or Rent Act", 1999 came to be
ai".'rw"ed j.~ciitioncr»tcnant to vacate the petition
A' 21-642006 and to pay the ameara
theta of the case an: that the
pptiiioncr/tenant herein under Sec 2'? {2} go; .*---.n:'. {r} of
_' KR; Pict 1999 oontcndiiig Lha- he is flac abfiiitra of
" -the petition ac_l1c.sd.iilc pmmiscs which is fasicicnfiai in nature
having acquired the same Iegistereci ~
by his father late R.K. Govindanaj Mudalacr. " " " * a
property belonged to his father that:
BDA has acquired the >
by the father of the 1espondentVh4ét«.regis_Itereti dated
31-05-1996 has __in favour of the
father of the respondent._._ the respondent
tmht pair.-r m ''u-.;s ' hur +1.. arm 11.'...
fither W an-;4"the pmpeny" ~ and kt oint of petitioner on monthly rent of «peti11one' r has been paying' rents to _fathe"r Of the regularly. The father of the A. diethihiiiiy 22-02-2002 lcav1n' g behmd' the his estate. But the petitioner after the of of the respondent, has not paid rents to h .
l n 1\ 5-.
(Eaten 18- 7-2603 to the petitioner caiiing upon him to pay 7,700[- towards arrears ofrents fimn June 2002 till the end of Juiy 200:3 at the rate of 5371- per month. ijisgiireé service of notice the petitioner ha_s,..not demands made by the 1eapondent:':;nd:"}3.¢§ii mply to the said IlO'lZi0C.' ['t.._ iB respondent] landlord that _V I' the respondent] landlmd 9:' __his with and one "' " --II''''''..
o aged gda. nhterawn, i.' Qhi - *1 vi g and fmm oiti ago'. £aI_1ii~.:.'t'mit"he uirc pcfition premises H 'fm??_.V -- and occupation to a<:oo1nn'is:-(Vla?re Erie' hence be filed the eviction' ' 3;». I11 of service of notice, the petitioner the counsel and filed the objection on the .. 7 I..V.. '-1'... 1...- -4- is no relationship of landlord and tenant nnmi 11* and hi .._-1!; .-.......-..-er, hw .!.=.fl..m'm in . . Q .........._.-.... --r.....--..- ---- -.-«-. 1 u; the 1-eswiident is the uw"""'ut':i" of tiie iiiiit ar;'ne€r"- E but according to after the death of the father "of the respondent the bmther of the respondent one Sri. Late G. Sampafigitamafi siic:-ceded to the estate of _ and he pa1d_ ' rents no him and _t_he eaem ~.hiiie§h;m7 cg h Sampangiraman he is paying manta tx:.~_f¢:»1r;c Mohan Kumar who are fincivifg G.Sampang1raman' . It is paatmonvf ' ' cr- tcnant that he took the lease fiom late G. on moh_th1_y;._Vtt;nt'"6f- in the: yea:
ken _1cai}ii1g behind the nespondem and mehmtheranete It is further case of the petitioner thatihis tmnsists of 8 members and he is schedule premises from the last 33 "(alder of eviction is passed he will he put to ¢m_e't*hmuL* . and inepambae loss. ~~4.'jTh_.¢_: trial (3 I rt _ _ .___ ...___- _----.--.-w-.----------'' ---y-- ' :-.--'--.._-.-..;
-rs an IAIHL I.I'..lI.r IX/I.II-.I|J.l.I. I 13 I. x" I-'I-uné 'kg nn_I-34$.-nan-an ' .-n....4 fie...-u-..-'I..... J... ._......rl_flt ._f '. ;,.
itsnts; that he being the tenant, cannot chaiicngc the 'executed by R K Govindaraj Mudaliam-fiathcr of the 1% 1 __,I.,_I-,I resmfldefit raid the petitton scneaulé ' .
for the purpose of bonafide _t'rte "' 2 respondent. Consequently by the respondent under "ta-. V(r) ; Being aggrieved, the petifioneer-Rtettent tip in this revision petition. A d 3 A Z
5. for the petitioner a;1d__ AV , petitioner argued that the .eepeee.et es.' "ttte»«.ewner of the petition schedule pmreiees. eretteteee Govindaraj Mudaliar was the V. effi the pretn'jse's;' that there is no attomment made in that he was paym. ' g rents to Govmdara' j death; petitioner has not executed any lease deed invddfaveur of the respondent. Since the respondent who IITIII ..
Ems fiat peeved the w1u S 5:
V Hehsolute owner of the petition schedule property, thus he is 10/ eev: .
no. entitlezi m initiate fiioeeedings against the vt fi1rcn"'*'"er contended that the trial CC_|_1.l.I..'t._has " " to 'Au the conclusion that respondent schedule premises and totathe hasis v of the Will. In support of his on the decision of this "pga,§v»1fnmwm us _A. mnwvapm (Am 1997KAR:t3?o;..us=,e§;::-;'iticyss-;"..c1d thus:
* suggsesmo 'Ss{59,'E3' -- F-foof.. It tube payed. ae_eo1daan¢e'with Se. 59, 63 of Succession Act fi.~'6"i,f:8 of the Evidence He hasV"also- xteeision of the Supreme Court in GIRJA_1)A'.I'TSlNG'H (AIR 1955 so * thus:
_ j"It cannot be presumed fl-om the ..v,mc:tc"'signan1rcs of two persons appcanh g "at the foot of the eztdomement or > __ ' -négistraflon of a wit} that they had appended. their s....,i«-'=,....-=-t-.1.-*e.'; to the document as attesting witnesses or can be cer.s*.:'-aw to have done so in their capacity as attesting witnesses. Sec.68 Evidence Act requires an attesting witness to be called a as witness to prove the due execution and attestation of the will. This provision should he eompled. !I.7"§'!..h in enter that those two persons might be ag -I ' 2-.tteeti1.n.g wimeeasa" .
He has also relied on a decision of the 7Su'preme_ Couxt VENKATACHALA IYENGAR N 1959 SC 443)wherein it__11,as held ti:n_s2.._. " The 7.'_.,}I'!;"l}§¢ff:;:.';?3';di¥_;'E"§A> '.'.'ill or otherwise making ai"C1ainx«._n11(i1-.r_'.a will is no doubt seeking tofpmvt.-: 4' its document and,' A ~ dee_idi1_;1g.~'how"'it" -is be proved, mference must be made to the =i'sta!?otoij;=._ epiovisione dwilich govern the ptooiiof doeumeaats, Seetions 67 and 68 of ' *A_clt,za:'e relevant for this ;:n.:_I~pot_I;e; .Un<£er,_S;57;._if~a' document is alleged to be A_ _eig.o_.w,'.'e;-I *aaya;~.e:s.-=n, the aifi'-amre of the A said 'must be proved to be in his d"i1andwriting for proving such a haxtdwfifing under Ss. 45 and 47 of the 'Act .opinions of experts and of persons with the handwriting of the concerned are made relevant.
"5.'3§i1!:!.ix.rzI. 63 dteale with the proof of the ' .''.''%:execution of the document required by law ~ _ to be atwsted; and it prari-lee that such a Vdocument shall not be used as evidence untii one attesting witness at least has been called tor the purpose of proving its execution. These provisions prescribe the requirements and the nature of proof which must be satisfied by the party who mlies on 9-. dmuz.-gent in 9. 'weed of le-.=.-.*.
Similarly, Ss. 59 and 63 of the Indian Succession Act an': ielcvani. 'i"nus 1% the question as in whether the iipbf *' h' by the pmpounder is proved to be L' 'M will of the teatator has toube the , light of these pmvisioris. It nrinta " ' facie be true to say thrgzwfill haafto be 'A proved. 3.11}; other exceptv as t' to the special of at.§:e:§tatiQn Succession Act. As inthe case' of proof of other documents so'"in of ' 'proof of wills, it would-be tr)" proof with mathematical giertaizity. _ test to be applied would,» be the IiS1.'lai=- iteet of the .satis3faet:io11{ of» the pI"'u,de;ni:' mud in such
7. jth" respofiiernt ha' to Prove the same cannot be looked that the petitioner was paying rentg to and after his death, he was V' afinta to thefiirother of the respondent one late G after his death, he was paying rents to Mohan Kumar who are the wife and son of .. .. ... ..,....r.....D..._......._. - .. .. ..- _ .. . .. ..-- a.I.....'4....1. '|.............1 ...................... .........e 4.1. 1...... 4. ........:l LI.I.|JIal.fil,ll. 11 ll n'.I LII LI 1!! VVG.lI« IJ1lInG.l.l U! llllllg Lilla Dfllll Rrajeshwari and her son to appear before the the respondent has not obtained any probate on the M ':9' . x basis of the alleged Will, he cannot blame otl1c1'«VsM.Vfi5: u not a legatee under the Will. The mspondefit Q' approached the Court with clean haiida. the original Will by the rcs1xmdent»'is_ toT'l"a.11 s. case." .. petifialt, fled by :.h.. we.-.1.' ".1-.... "
he mm-.g.:."..'es the pmzrdses fer his "Se cazifiififion inom-met, the u come to the conclusion thgt._:"tt;c 3 "respondent is bonafide. order be set aside. """ H ,' 0:11 3 learned counsel for the respondentjeutyfrfitfefltleeiétieifiéeibm filing the eviction petition, notice has been to the petitioner-tena=.mt I.I.r,s 'of father late Ciovindaraj Mudaliar. The "'pcfifioim5'bcing a tenant during the life time of his father, he VA rents at Rs.50/-- per month. Since the petitioner not paid the rents fiom June, 2002 to February 2003, he \ I A}.
ll filed the eviction petition. He further contended A4 3 the death of his father, khata has been "
name and he is paying taxes V has produced katha extract, tax
-V V.
--- -- ' '-~ - . ' , '3 -~'---g,--V-"'-- _rn..r_ ed as Ex:.s.P--4 tn P-ti Hg " Lao ....1.. .a....: _ 1:-.. i1 .....a ....4;c:...1 ......;;a .....1.. ..i.'.-....: ...e'|:,\.. E4"
EH15 Iii" I33-I .l ELIKI -'J-I lljlnl. 3. lulu' 'E:
ii; is aegued that since them is no need to flic iiiibtigiiiiiiihpmbatc. It h further the contentions urged by geféeipts pmdueed by the peuuomee Therefore, the trial Court has petition and he prays for _ dig_m,i.€§na_lAgfthc"'_- I V 'Eviction petition-issue:
relationship of landlord and tcnantéebcinfl a question of fact tombs deeided'_~,o'n evidenticiary material; mere 'aflegafion ' not oust jurisdiction of Ccg'u:tf-lnee.doeiiinigf~.. e such dispute, if -r_~4'.1.=m_1,-..|i.r..*-9_*_'.n'r;*. qneotnne. of V' law and fact a11e=li1:e_ly to-aria: the issue elsewhere --- of ion such issuee. "much tiepends upon and little" on law, such Court should not .j)1:'eaaed'"to 'decide that quetion an...» _a, "issue --
He has anus Apex Court in s ?HANC.vAPPAAN_v'hi:e'1 R¥§Dfia)§VA1IIi?' mm 1999 so 3584) whercii; it-has V" " h as gaining; and Rent Ccmtrol) 'Act (18 of 1960), S 14(1)(b) -- Eviction ~ default -= d..m..-*'"'*-' of 31% = m"-..a:~.t premises by landlord --
--.4p'a-ymcnt of rent by tenant to iandiord -- ~ Vsnbaequenfly, on knowing t then: was title holder, a devasthanam, . tenantpaying the menttoitandnotto 'V "his landlord without even being informed by eI.I.c-11.. r..1.:.-92-..s.It--.1.1.!I.:1.s.aI_v;1. me; it t_Lm owner--- Held, dcfaultwaswilfuh dcnialo}' tife against the }uuum-""-rt'. %m -v-ety inception -- forbidden by S. 116 of Evidence He has % =~e.li.-,d m *"- -'-"'-4"" ~"""'- "l-'"* its ' _ c|I----Ab-A 4_..
Paw. vs KARu1vA1£AR' In' ogfsj * wherein it has been held thus:
'K R Act, 1999 -- 4
-' lt is .9-.wlk:¢=-$1: only 'in 9. case ';'*.r1-..-ate thefi' is nothing to the of the i'1T:}|'i'L'i6i'1i'x'.ii§.6f find 'wna1a"""--ta..vvV it cannot be' '41_;3r_s.Vtenant who does not deny_ehise.sfistns'hut only denies that the pe1jso'n._whouha"sV the evicfitm petition hint: "is not the ;g;:;¢1::m1 h_e"tii*::dV--the pteniodvaes fimm V' ~Wl1x:) . not the true 1 ......-..'.'....l...i.--,.+;.."._" .4.-. _4_.s...", .'.;..;..:....i I.....u.......:
\-'F-I I-I-I-It 3 u' Z1"-III-I.I\cIv _ .... No his status of ' the of
-_ the" landlord once it is . «--estal)li;~a11sd"--.1_iy»n.4t§1e persons so claiming _ that 'they. the true representatives of Li..;...:..- I.._.......1 1... 1-...........: ...............| ...... 1... .- .... 19:' K! Vt.'-I-is ll-Gil-III tll 151191 \KJ|.aI.I.l.fil U11 I-'Jt}i 3%, for consideration is whether the order under is incorrect and illegal and if so, whether it
9." 4" ' --- for-tiny intaerfcmnce?
11. Admittedly, the petitioner is a tenant in respect of petition schedule pmmiscs. Then: is no dispute with mgard to the rate of rent and he was a tenant under late /1:\ / ('..:IuIl-3|-|r'n:n»-nan' Ilia;-'InIq'nn_{-'1; In-m cal-' uruvu.uuu.na_g :uuua.unL'u:I.uu; In the 1 D II :4 .-.'¢_._I.I.I: ' ' 7,1 ' t.
the respondent is that the iate t he ' a registeted Will in favour of the zeepon.de;tvt.""eQh..the' the registered Will, khata is at? the hf.
respondent. It is hi case that he need not obtain of the eviction Pfitition of the same. The iipf that the tum hee net been efimea-s. But the under the father of the teepehdeht the validity of the Will. When his relationship as that of a r _ tttzdef of the respondent, he cannot dispute statzlleef under the respondent who is the son of especially so when the petitioner is not dispuuhhg the relationship of late -Govindaraj Mudaliar and as f n *' 9. f'-thew" and-sen. fie .2:-Am, :L1-..._._.__ _.:_.____ ..._ 3-4.- 1. hga... ._f 1.1.- r..ga1npaugnu1uu11- Le Dfuulci' In ffaflfléiitiéfif; 'Has flfri wtpxesfioned the registeredt ' executeti by father in favour of his bmther- respondent herein. M and her son Mohan Kumar who an-':e~ the 2 nephew of the respondent, have not .
As such there i no dispute " ' Mudaliar or their L.Rs. Vnnd 9.. one else is disputing the tiLle'--o£ the of.-er tr.' petsmuon E! e...&=.....-F . _iitigai;ion pending with In
------d to else except this respondent and that the pefitaiomee them they ought to have filed a suit; have impleaded in the present plooeedings, 'me. at before the Court to give *e.";nte*'*u'"_*1-"niy to protect the proceedings before the trial A ":h('.§.:c11:p1?i:L"A_*'i"'nerefo1e, the petitioner has no right to question the of the property. So also right of the respondent to uh' eviction petition againt him. Moreover, even in the W')/' \ gr' -.
ah'-..er.ce of the .s'.a.*i.-i will, in the absence of ' n. disputing the reiafionship of " " 'V respondent as thatof father and evexy right to maintain petitioner as a co-owner of .
Therefore, the that has not been attorney!' 'by cannot
be accepted, ten...;nnt tzmier the in favour of his son - ~ question of attomment or production the respondent to prove the not arise.
V the petitioner has not paid the arrears of to prove that rents have been regularly to late G.&m -- bmthe: ot'.t!1e are d._...t fin-.1v was no n-.9-....:*La! n'-M-5"... % $32'. by the . VT---Fr?
' ta -prove the same. T"ne tent produced by petitioner to show that after the death of Govindamj /'§/K executors, either Rajeahwan' and Mamém if the petitioner has taken it tiutytute keep them present belirme the If he has not taken he 'cannot blame of those two witnesses.
t....'~=-t p'2*..*'.*::...~.'~.-- is re-1%':-:6 fisr his per:-sew use use of his members .
To that himself before the trial _ the petitioner and the petitioner has failed' 'reb1.1t avaJlab' le in favour of the under the Act. The eoumlel for the giefitjpner much with gt.» t_h_-_= meg;-_+p n_nd. hardship lost its relevance and the ~ be taken into consideration in the I-I
14.. '.'.'e-.=.ver'.. ....m any .a.-:-..-' A an} um ,5.'-c. 'dd-r-#. '"
g1Uun""""n"S to ifiir:i1"eif.- the the same does not require intc;r:fé'1encr.."" -- . ._
15. £I_1'_!!_s ;-..,I;'|. is c.'-.*..-=.'.*.-zisa.-4,... m;-.-' -Fij:~«-"e'~e+-s- an 39-5-gees es acheduie The petitioner shall like an cfibct within two weeks frmn today. The pay the tents: mgulady ii: the it becomes due. The amount in to the respondent-]andlom£i_,__1 sd_I-3%,, 'judge