Karnataka High Court
Sri R Amruthlal vs Sri B K Nataraja on 15 December, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.254 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
SRI R. AMRUTHLAL
S/O SRI RIKHABCHAND,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.77,
DIAGONAL ROAD,
V.V.PURAM,
BENGALURU - 560 004.
ALSO AT:
THE PROPRIETOR,
M/s.MAHAVEER TEXTILE CORPORATION
BEARING SHOP NO.510/10, AND 11,
FIRST FLOOR, PREMISES B.B.M.P NO.510/A,
KNOWN AS "MURUGAN BUILDINGS"
AVENUE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 009. ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI N.BYRE GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI V.KRISHNA MURTHY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI B.K.NATARAJA
S/O LATE B.N.KRISHNAIAH SETTY,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
R/AT NO.66, REAR SIDE,
EAST ANJANEYA TEMPLE STREET,
2 CRP No.254/2018
BASAVANAGUDI,
BENGALURU - 560 004.
2. SRI PRAKASH CHAND JAIN
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,
MAJOR IN AGE,
BEARING SHOP NO.510/10 AND 11,
FIRST FLOOR, PREMISES B.B.M.P NO.510/A,
KNOWN AS "MURUGAN BUILDINGS"
AVENUE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 009. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI D N MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1)
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 18
OF SMALL CAUSES ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 11.04.2018 PASSED IN S.C.NO.305/2015 ON THE FILE OF
THE III ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES,
BENGALURU PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR EJECTMENT.
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This revision petition is filed by the tenant challenging the judgment dated 11.04.2018 passed by the III Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru (SCCH-18) (hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court') in S.C.No.305/2015, by which, he was ordered to be evicted from the petition premises.
2. The respondents filed S.C.No.305/2015 claiming that he was a beneficiary under a Will dated 08.08.2007 followed by two deeds of codicil dated 17.03.2008 and 11.02.2011 in terms 3 CRP No.254/2018 of which, he had succeeded to the suit property from his father. He claimed that the petitioner herein was inducted by his father as a tenant in the suit property in terms of a agreement of lease dated 09.10.1972 for a period of eleven months. He claimed that even after the contractual period, the petitioner was permitted to continue in the premises. He claimed that the petitioner did not pay any rent, but had un-authorisedly sub-let the premises to another person and therefore, the tenancy was terminated by a notice dated 31.12.2011. The notice of termination was served on the petitioner who did not comply with the notice demand. The respondents therefore filed a suit to eject the petitioner from the suit property.
3. The petitioner contested the suit and disputed his relationship with the respondent. He claimed that it was Sri.B.N.Krishnaiah Setty who was the owner of the premises and who was collecting the rent and therefore, the suit was not maintainable for ejectment. He also disputed the execution of the Will in favour of the respondents and claimed that the respondents had to obtain a declaration from the competent 4 CRP No.254/2018 Court. Based on these contentions, the Trial Court framed the following issues:
i) Whether the plaintiff proves the existence of jural relationship of landlord and tenant between it and the defendant No.1 in respect of the suit schedule premises and also proves that, defendant No.1 has sublet the same to the defendant No.2?
ii) Whether the plaintiff proves that, it has legally terminated the tenancy of the defendants over the suit schedule property as per Section 106 of T.P. Act?
iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mesne profit as contended in the plaint and also entitle to seek enquiry in to mesne profit for wrongful use and occupation of the suit schedule premises as contemplated under Order 20 Rule 12 of CPC?
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief as sought for?
5. What order or decree?
4. The first respondent herein was examined as PW-1 and he marked documents as Exs.P1 to P16. He also examined his brother as PW-2 who marked documents as Exs.P17 to P20. 5 CRP No.254/2018 The tenant was examined as DW-1. However, he did not mark any documentary evidence.
5. Based on the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court held that the tenant had admitted that the premises was owned and possessed by Sri.B.N.Krishnaiah Setty and that he was a tenant under the said Sri.B.N.Krishnaiah Setty. He admitted that Sri.B.N.Krishnaiah Setty expired on 04.09.2011. The Trial Court held that the tenant had though disputed the lawful execution of the Will by Sri.B.N.Krishnaiah Setty in favour of the respondent but yet, the respondent was a member of the family of Sri.B.N.Krishnaiah Setty and therefore, without commenting upon the legality of the Will executed in favour of the respondent, the Trial Court held that the respondent had proved his ownership and that the petitioner had continued as a tenant under the respondents. Therefore, the Trial Court held that the petition for ejectment filed by one of the co-owners was maintainable. It also noticed that the notice of attornment of tenancy issued by the landlord was refused by the petitioner and he contended that he was not residing in the address mentioned 6 CRP No.254/2018 on the postal envelope. However, he admitted that he was a tenant residing at the address mentioned on the envelope. He also admitted the receipt of the notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. Therefore, the Trial Court held that the plaintiff had made out a case for ejectment of the petitioner from the premises and hence, decreed the suit and directed the petitioner to deliver possession within 45 days from the date of the order.
6. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed the present revision petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the ejectment, which is based on the Will and Codicil must have been proved before a competent Court or it must have been declared to be valid in accordance with law and thereafter, the landlord could have instituted suit of ejectment for eviction. He also contended that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the respondent and therefore, in view of law laid down by this Court in ILR 2015 KARNATAKA 3443 (Sri Avinash Lal Chandani and others Vs. Sri P.A. Niranjan and others), the 7 CRP No.254/2018 said question ought to have been decided by the Civil Court. He contended that the approach adopted by the Trial Court was without proper application of mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and termination of the tenancy was not in accordance with law. He therefore submitted that the Trial Court was not justified in ordering eviction of the petitioner.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Caveator/ Respondent No.1 submitted that there is no dispute regarding the fact that the respondent was the son of Sri.B.N.Krishnaiah Setty. There is also no dispute regarding the fact that the petitioner was a tenant under Sri.B.N.Krishnaiah Setty who expired in the year 2011. In the circumstances, if not as a legatee, the respondent was still entitled to seek ejectment of the tenant by following the process prescribed under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act. He submitted that the notice of termination issued to the petitioner was addressed to the same place where the petitioner was carrying on the business. If he had refused to receive the notice, he did so at his peril. However, since the notice of termination was issued in 8 CRP No.254/2018 accordance with law, the petitioner must have vacated and handed over the vacant possession of the premises to the respondents.
8. Though the petitioner tried to contend that the notice of the termination is not in accordance with Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, nothing formidable is pointed out to upset the termination. A perusal of the records would indicate that the notice of termination of the tenancy was addressed to the place where the petitioner was carrying on business. The postal authorities would have attempted to hand it over to the petitioner. In the present case, the petitioner has refused to receive the notice. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim that the tenancy was not terminated in accordance with law. I do not find any reason to interfere with the well considered judgment of the Trial Court and therefore, there is no merit in this revision petition and hence, it is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE DH