Karnataka High Court
Sri Suresh vs Smt.Annamma Krupa on 7 February, 2017
Author: S.Sujatha
Bench: S.Sujatha
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA
H.R.R.P No.132 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
SRI.SURESH
S/O LATE RAGHAVELU
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/AT NO.34
MADHAVA MODALIAR ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 005.
....PETITIONER
(BY SRI.S.G.MUNISWAMY GOWDA, ADV.)
AND:
1. SMT.ANNAMMA KRUPA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
D/O LATE J.ANTHONY SWAMY
2. SMT.SREELATHA
D/O LATE J.ANTHONY SWAMY
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
NO.9/14, NEW NO.34
LLOYDS ROAD, COOKE TOWN
BANGALORE - 560 005.
....RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.MAHESH H.V. ADV.
FOR SRI.V.ANAND ADV. FOR C/R1 & R2)
2
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 46 OF
KARNATAKA RENT ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER
DATED 07.11.2014 PASSED IN HRC NO.10038/2012 ON THE
FILE OF THE V-ASCJ AND XXIV, ACMM, COURT OF SMALL
CAUSES, MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU, ALLOWING THE
PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 27 (1) (a) (r) OF KARNATAKA
RENT ACT.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is directed against the judgment and order passed by the V Additional Small Causes Judge and XXIV ACMM, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru in HRC No.10038/2012, whereby the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 27(2) (a) and (r) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 came to be allowed with costs directing the petitioners to quit, deliver and hand over the vacant possession of the schedule premises to the petitioner within 60 days from the date of the order in addition to paying the arrears of rent at the rate of Rs.600/- p.m. from 01.10.1997 till the petitioner hands over the vacant possession of the same to these respondents. 3
2. Briefly stated the facts are that the respondents herein filed a petition under Section 27 (2) (a) & (r) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 claiming that they are the owners of the suit schedule property. The petitioner herein is a tenant under the respondents in respect of the petition schedule property bearing No.34 on a monthly rent of Rs.600/-. The petitioner herein entered appearance and filed objections denying the petition averments claiming that the respondents are not the owners of the schedule premises and there is no jural relationship of tenant and landlord between the petitioner and the respondents. The trial Court after appreciating the evidence on record allowed the petition. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.
3. Learned Counsel Mr.S.G.Muniswamy Gowda appearing for the petitioner would contend that the respondents placed reliance on Exs.P7 to P9, the rental receipts counterfoils, which discloses the name of one Sri.Gopinath who is no way concerned to the petitioner's 4 family. Petitioner's grand father was in possession of the petition property since 1960 as an agreement holder. There was no jural relationship between the grandfather of the petitioner and the respondents as tenant and the landlord and as such with the petitioner and the respondent. These vital aspects were not considered by the trial Court in proper perspective while allowing the petition.
4. Per contra, learned counsel Mr.Mahesh H.V. appearing for the respondents supports the impugned judgment and order. The arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the rental receipts counterfoils at Exs.P7 to P9 indicates the name of one Sri.Gopinath and not the petitioner herein may not be the ground to dispute the relationship of landlord and the tenant between the respondents and the petitioner herein. Originally the petition property was rented out to the grandfather of the petitioner herein on a monthly tenancy from the father of the respondents. The respondents are claiming, they are the 5 landlords of the suit property based on a Will said to have been executed by their father in favour of them bequeathing the suit properties. Subsequent to the demise of their father, the respondents are to be considered as landlords, being the daughters of the original owner Sri.Joseph Reddy who are claiming the rights over the property under the Will said to have been executed by him. The burden lies on the petitioner to establish that his grandfather was in possession of the petition property as an agreement holder and adverse possession has to be proved against the true owner.
5. At the first instance, no agreement is produced by the petitioner herein to establish the factum of agreement said to have been executed by the owner Sri.Joseph Reddy in favour of the petitioner's father. In the absence of the same, interested testimony of the respondents would not lend any credence to believe the version of the petitioner that he is not the tenant of the suit property. These aspects are extensively considered by the trial court appreciating the evidence on 6 record and the finding of fact is recorded to the effect that the petitioner herein is the tenant of the respondents. The petitioner cannot take undue advantage of any dispute pending in the joint family in much as the title tos the property. The title to the property cannot be decided in these proceedings. Accordingly, no ground is made out by the petitioner to interfere with the well reasoned judgment and order.
Petition stands dismissed as devoid of merits.
Sd/-
JUDGE SS