Karnataka High Court
N Kamalamma vs H S Subbanarasimha Sastry on 26 November, 2009
Equivalent citations: AIR 2010 (NOC) 833 (KAR.), 2010 (2) AIR KANT HCR 146, 2010 A I H C 1929, (2010) 1 RENCR 568, (2011) 1 RENTLR 127, (2011) 1 ICC 756, (2010) 1 KCCR 290
1- 1-IRRP NO. 427/O1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 26"? DAY OF NoVEMBER..2_Oe9 A. K
BEFORE
THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE:A;'s.?Ac2'1Hgtt§i§i2Ei
HOUSE RENT REVESION I>E1'11'iQN7'é§Ci.42'r ($5,200
BETWEEN
N. Kamaiamma, V 2 j .,
W/0 Late K.V. Nanjunda S'C1Lfy; * }
Since dead by {Rs " E f 1
K.S. Nagendraprasad. .
S/0 KR. Sathyszziasgafi/an3._,
No.40/1}, 33¢' ' _ __
8"' Block. Jajranagar, . ' ''
Bangaloxfeu PETITIONER/S
(Sri. A V4" '
AND
fl.S. Subbanarasirnha Sastry,
"S/o."vS1'eekaritta sastry;"Hindu.
Majer, Pfu.r:)h.i.th--,. 1\Eo.200é~.
Ra*«iE.'fiflk'ie.s R'c»a_d;t
_" ' ._(sri. P.N_.' Ezamesh, Adv.)
KR." E:itensiQn;g1\/fadhugiri.
Tum_i_§;ur District. RESPONDENT/ S
>l=#=F=S=*
_ This HRRP is filed u/S115 CPC against the Order dated
E 14;/3/2001 passed in RR No.16/1985, on the file of the I Addi.
Dist. Judge, Tumkur, dismissing the Revision «Petition filed
Wander Section 50 of the KRC Act and confirming the order
2 HRRP NO. 427/01
dated 5/2/1985 in HRC No.4/81 on the file of the Prl. Munsiff.
Madhugiri, dismissing the petition filed u / S 21 (a) (h), (f) & (1') of
KRC Act.
This I"-IRRP having been heard and reservedp..C'o:rf1irig.V'o«n
for pronouncement of orders, this day, the Court.;3V__pron_oL1noe_<j'
the following: V -
The petitioner has challenged the
the Courts below rejecting her»a.pfp~1.ioation._'Section'
21 (Li) (a) (h) [I] and (j) of Kaprriata_i:a"1;{¢.nt'Cp1'1tro{t:;Act, 1961
[hereinafter called as it confirmed in
Rent Revision 16/. "'I"urnkur.
2. The _fac:_ts_;relevant-tforpithe purpose of this revision are
as under»;
The petitionei' _h4erein«"i_7i1ed a petition under Section 21 (a)
(h) of Vtiiefljviet of 1961 before the Trial Court seeking
ev1'c;t.io1ithegrespond-ent herein and to grant the vacant
poSsiessionh"_~~..,.of~:;"the petition premises bearing Khatha
V _ No.2Ci04,5.Vi98'i;. Door No.65, Ravi Talkies Road, KR Extension,
it Lfourn, Madhugiri, Turnkur District, described in the
sehedfile to the petition.
K
3 HRRPNOM12'?/O1
The petition premises belong to Sri.K.G.Venkataramana
Setty who died on 20.11.1980 without any issues andV--l'eav1'ng
behind the petitioner, his sister, as his only heir,
had predeceased him. It is ax/erred that the petition
was let to the respondent on a rnonthlyrental of E"V)xt)--.'Q0 tin
the year 1979. The respondent
premises from 1.11.1979 prior death' of V-the..;Vbrother of" 9
the petitioner deceased Sri.K.G.Ve.ni{'ataramana ~Sett.g;3 and even
subsequent to his death.' llthelgpetitioner issued a
notice dated 28.t)_3;],_981;'toV'Vtl"re res.po_nd.Ven.tj Registered Post
andit returrzeriv w§th_='.anjgcndorsernent as 'addressee refused'.
The petViti0ner"1ljh_ad 7fg1iso"'s§:1zt awnoticte under certificate of
posting and the ~di~d not comply the said notic.e nor
repliedthe petitioner alleged that the respondent is
'due of Rs,2';'8'5VO--OO, the arrears of rent upto the end
..:and thereby, sought eviction on the grounds
(1) (a) {h} {1} and (j) of the 1961 Act.
'l'i1,eA'i~petition premises was said to be in dilapidated
There were large cracks developed in the building
and a portion of the premises had collapsed and the remaining
Tportion was in a dangerous condition and therefore. the
M
4 HRRP NO. 427/Ol
petitioner intended to demolish the premises and to put tip the
construction in the place of the dilapidated premises,l_ltolls_uit
her requirements and to house her grand son, _
practicing as an Advocate at Madhugiri:
It is also averred that the respondent hapAd'~
portions of the premises to dit1"e_re~nt other persvon's,wt'o"enrich"
himself by taking more rent anpd---t11iep_: petitionerlalsosiought the
possession of the premisesllleveln._o;n:' as well. it is
also averred that4the.lalterations without
the permission the petitioner and
on these. forlweviction from the petition
premises,
The respondent irfliolappeared before the Trial Court filed
"his 'oio}eetion--s statement admitting the fact that the petition
by Sri.K.G.Venkataramana Setty and that
he in 1980. He did not admit the averments that
'the petitioner is the legal heir of the deceased. He denied the
":.relatio«nship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and
l hiiinself and all other averments with regard to the rental of the
premises, the arrears due and the demand made. It is his
ML
'5 HRRP NO. 427/oi
specific case that he had agreed to purchase the petition
premises from the deceased Sri.K.G.Venkataramana Setty, who
had agreed to sell the same and that major portion of the"'sa1e
consideration was paid to him. He also assertsppppihat-'lithe-.
deceased had executed a Will dated 5.8.1979 H
sound and disposing state of mind and' in1'h.e' said --hadg
admitted the receipt of the considerationialnd tlhe..pAresponld'erit':.
also claimed that the said Will wasattested in " V
the presence of the deceased and 'l'attestors;v...A.SV§ per the
terms of the Will, the ba1ancelcon'sid'ei'atioln' =Rs.15,000/-- was
'1
due and that an arriotint the spent for the
obsequiesijvof lvthevl.:d,ecpe:a,sedjalter_1iisWdeath and the remaining
Rs.1O,O00'/Puwas the petitioner, who had to
eXeCute_.21 sale" deed .5--in'*.fa\}our of the respondent. In the
lcircurastancesvit A. the respondent averred that the petitioner is
l0,000/- as per the Will executed which
has been registered and in the circumstances, it was his
. ,_co,ntention that the petition was not maintainable in law.
During the enquiry, the petitioner was examined as
'i~"'W*'*.:1 and three witnesses were examined on his behalf and the
it " " documents Exs.P.l to 19.13 were marked, while the respondent
ti-
5 HRRP NO. 427'/O1
examined himself and five other witnesses and the document
EX.D.1 was marked in eviderice. The Trial Court on
appreciation of the material on record, after hearing theleparties
rejected the petition holding that there is no relat'ioi1ship ;_.vof.p
Iandiord and tenant between the parties and by the-,
said order, the petitioner approached
16/ 1985 and the said revision' petition = wastpdismisselddldorrg
merits confirming the finding of Aggrieved by
the concurrent findings p_ below, Hthe" petitioner
approached this Court in revi-si_onl.'
4. This C_onrt.t:rdisp:0sed tdheidvrevisioh petition on merits
Vide order datedV2Vi;:@$;2,t)'0"and the orders of the Courts below
were set aside"andtheeviictioii petition filed by the petitioner
was ailowed grail-tirig ope and half years time to vacate and
hlpandluover "petition premises to the petitioner. Aggrieved by
the the respondent. approached the Apex
_ Court=--inAppeal Nos.472O w 4721/2002 and vide order
31';--d3.2009, the Apex Court allowed the appeals by
. settingdaside the order of this Court and remitted the matter for
fresh disposal in accordance with law and it is under these
" lcircuinstances that the matter has come up for hearing.
"-4
HRRP NO. 427/0]
5. Some events which occurred subsequent to the filing
of the petition before the Trial Court are necessaryglitoo be
referred.
6. The respondent filed a suit in o.s.No.':.i2f9;goo1"%
specific performance of the contract against the pe.tjiti«o_nVer':an.d.
by the judgment and decree of the'firincipall.'v_--v_rt:ivtl'~
[Jr.Dvn.), Madhugiri, the suit oe.erem:-v_:diree'tih'[g% the"
petitioner to execute the registeredvhsaledeed ini"-avour of the
respondent in respect of thevhpetitiori and aggrieved by
this judgment an(;¥.:ldeCre§:_'AVl§l:3i' listpxending before the
Civil Judge, sr.:\n.',3§_,.:;i§/:ac1h.gg3.:1,*-."ar5_e1 httewise, the petitioner
instituted.._'OS» '11.i'22foo'1i s'ee.£§:irt.g't11e relief of declaration that he
is the 0wnereol"the"suit' premises which includes the petition
premise-slvand also 'for possession. It has been submitted before
'the said suit was dismissed for default and an
appli'c.atio11:li"ovr restoration is pending before the Trial Court.
V V' The cc-uns-_'el for the parties in their Memo have informed this
about these events and the counsel for the respondent
uha.sl'~-produced the judgment and decree passed in
'Q.._S:Not179/2001 whereas the counsel for the petitioner has
" ~ "produceci the copy of the plaint in O.S.No.il1/2001 and it is
M»
8 HRRP NO. 427'/O1
in these circumstances that I have heard the learned counsel
for the petitioner and also the respondent.
7. It is the Contention of the learned
petitioner that the Will Ex.D.1 produced by the it
false and fictitious document proiducned'
intention to avoid eviction. It is._aisQ his"co11tenti_on_;tiiat'there'V V
is arnpie material on record there the
relationship of landlord the petitioner and
the respondent. Ei-evxcontendsi"ithatfihere vwiasforal tenancy in
the life time.' Ve--i;i;ataraniana.Setty and the
respondent_VaridV{t--h1a:t_ did not pay the rent,
the notice was fact that the respondent did not
repiy the notice sufficient to draw an inference about
the existence of xU*i.t_3HI;€1at:lO1]Ship. It is also his contention that
there is material worth acceptance on record to prove that
there".__pwavs""'~.ranr.:'agreement of sale between the deceased
V by _ Venktaraznaiiad Setty and the respondent at any time and that
eivenopthe provisions of Section 53~A of the Transfer of Property
'cannot be applied to, as there is no written agreement
signed by the parties. So also. it is his contentisn that under
"VVArticie 54 of the Limitation Act, the suit for specific
oé
9 HRRP NO. 427/01
performance has to be instituted within three years from the
date fixed or the date of refusal of the performance and as the
respondent instituted the suit in the year 2001, the sui_t itself
is barred by time. So also, it is his contention."thhatrthe
respondent with an evil motive instituted OS
for partition between himself and theeeenigmb-'éltgfl ..
and got the compromise decree in
properties which includes the Vpletitionlllpreniises}:ll'flaereifor3e,lvheit"
submits that this itself would est:abli'she_vthe.'m.alai"icle} intention
of the respondent and Atliat;V~_tAh.e"-o'i*al'eyidence led by the
petitioner is sufficient relationship as
landlord. and" the parties. On these
grounds, "the 'requested._:t'o.__:éillow the revision petition and to
grant a decree' =of_lVevic,tion_. V" dd
["961-"'AC01'1T.I'étl.HHlfht3 learned counsel for the respondent
Arthcvre is no relationship of landlord and tenant
between the and that he has been in possession 'bf the
'petitionpremises under an agreement of sale and was to pay
"ai;.Varnount of Rs.15.00()/~ the balance sate consideration as
.___l'"n1entioned in Ex.D.l the Will of the deceased Venkataramana
l"*.Setty and in the circumstances, he instituted the suit in OS.
:34.
10 HRRP NO. 427/O}
No.179/2001 and the same has been decreed. Hence, he
submits that this Court cannot negate the decree in a'n_other
suit by allowing this revision petition. So also
Contention that the Will EX.D.l contains the info--rrr1ation'
the relationship between the respo-nde--nt dlee.igas'a:1'
Venkatararnana Setty under an agre"'e.ment' of sale --. and
absence of any acceptable materiai. on behalf _otv-the.;'petitioner;'V l
he claims that the contents of tiave to"be._coArrsidered to
hold that there is no reltationsliiip 4otfl1.an--diord and tenant
between the parties. he that under
Section 43 of the' i~§e1it- (hereinafter called
as 'the Aetfifor will have to be referred to
the Civilvvlhfliourtl question of the existence of the
relationship b'etu}"een.V'~thle. parties as it is a complicated question
Q-annot be" "" "decided in summary proceedings.
'submits that there are concurrent findings of
the Courts and the petitioner has not made out any such
lgrounctcall for interference. On these grounds, he has
A fsoughtfor dismissal of the petition.
ifarise for my consideration are:
9. In view of the rival contentions raised, the points that
$1 .
11 HRRP NO. 427'/OE
{1} Whether there exists the relationship of
landlord and tenant between the parties'?
(it) Whether the petitioner is entitled to
possession of the petition premises 013".
ground of default in payment of rent :"
occupation for himself or any rnemb-e.r_: .
family? i' l l
(iii) Whether the petitioner ha~sliriade oiitlplvariy .
grounds to call
judgment and order VQ..f.ltl=.Ve Courts 'o«elow?_l
10. I have carefully:'3crtrtin_isedV.the"material placed on
record, t'"r1e"'e\ri'Clence?1"ledkby the"p'arties and the documents
admittedfinl'evidence; SQ'V'fa,i'l§_S the relationship is concerned
as pleaded l)y_vthe it is only the oral evidence which
~-__has 'oe'conside'i*ed____ai1d on this aspect of the matter, the
l"__:Courise1 for.tl1f:ll"petitioner Submits that though. a contention has
the respondent that there was an oral
'V agreelnientaohf sale. the counsel submits that his claim is barred
time and the provisions of Section 53~A of the T1'ansfer of
.l Act do not apply and hence, the oral evidence led by
the petitioner has to be accepted. it is his version that when«
M.
12 HRRP NO. 427/01
the respondent fails to establish the existence of an agreement
of sale, the only course open is to accept. the evidencep".'c~fp the
petitioner and to hold that there is relationship of
tenant between the parties.
It is not in dispute that there' isnotvtritten.__.VagreVe'rnent.
between the respondent and the erstxtvhile otvzéer;
aspect of the matter, as could bewsieen fron1.tl1esd_ect£s;'on of the V
Apex Court reported 5£t6""'{Nathu1al V.
Phoolchand), the Apex provisions of
Section 53A of has stated the
conditions c:Cgrr:1p"p,1_ied_vt9i_tl1Vi'oHtnvoke Section 53A.
xii} be an agreement in
4' the executor or some
" p_erson on his behalf,
{i'i}.p_Sec0nd'1ty, that the transferee has taken
'A possession of the property in part
' --. performance of the contract.
{iii} Thirdly, that the transferree has done
some act in furtherance of the contract;
and
13 HRRP NO. 427/Oi
(iv) Lastly. that the transferee has
performed or is willing to perform his
part of the contract.
So if these requirements are fulfilled, then Section 53--A
of the Transfer of Property Act. applies and thereby eié
is complete. This Court in the decision reportedliinv
Kar 1534 [N.Basavaraj since deceas»e_d V:-:..u
B.Sridhar and others} has referred thel
down by the Hozible Apex>l__r"ef.erred"- to. ...lr1 the!'
circumstances, in the absence of_Va~vvv1'a'tten agrevemevht of sale,
the transfer is incornpiete. .1-Ience.?{.pSec't:'o'nA 5.3--A of the Transfer
of property Act has noIapplication,_t($'«.tr,e"facts on hand, as
admittedly. no \vri'tten._ contract of sale of the petition
prernisesf 4'
_.;jll.s, As pleaded 'by the petitioner, there was an oral
lagreelriaenkth Atenancy on a monthly rental of Rs.150--OO and
Athis-lagreeéniebntffiras in the year 1979. So far as the evidence on
this "aspec't' ofdzhe matter is concerned, the petitioner examined
the.--:PA Holder who is the grandson of the petitioner
u.fSmt._.N.}*'Kamalamma. He states in his evidence that the
if respondent is the tenant under the petitioners brother on a
aéu
14 HRH? NO. 427'/Oi
monthly rental of Rs.150~0O and that the respondent has
occupied the premises in the year 1979. it is relevanteto note
that PW.1 has no personal knowledge about the:._of
tenancy between Late.K.G.Venkatararnar1a Setty V
respondent. So also, at the tiII1e,wh.en
recorded, though the petitioner was she
witness box. Therefore, the evidence of I5W,1 is otfvto the . it
petitioner so far as the proof of stenancgpvis coricevrned. Further,
PW.2 has been eXarnined""'a:g-idehe evidence that the
respondent stayedrin theA"peti:tion .p.pel:i;s§5 a tenant under
Venkataramanaiv and fact and that he
had the rent. He further states that
after thexdeathl of Setty it was Rangappa who
was collvectintgw the rent "for'" some days and that Rangappa has
2§~(:)I1}€A letters'""[i3Xs.P.10 to 13.13) addressed to the
reveals that Rangappa had collected
Ré.5oo--0o . tatndttllthat he would come on 18.02.1981 and pay the
'fi.'Sa1'I'1C.' E:i(.«;P.v11 reveals that he collected Rs.70()--0O and that he
A V~lWo1ild..epay the same and likewise, Ex.P.12 is with regard to
collection of Rs.500~O(). Relying upon these documents, the
ttfihcounsel submits that the said amount was collected by
bi.
15 HRRP NO. 427/o1
Rangappa after the death of Venkatrnana Setty and that was
the rent paid by the respondent. The perusal of these ___letters
though reveal that he collected some amount, but it '*dio'es'~vnot
indicate that it was the rent. At the same time,
has examined himself as DW.1 and thep_witnesses.::lDW"s.2,
DW.2 is none else than the said G.l'{'.Ra:ngappia,_Vwho wr:'ote"i'i.li'e
letters Exs.P.10 to R113. He has'«spoken,_ hisiv'eVidcnee
the execution of the Will by Sri.I{.'G,lVenkata1*a:rnanavESetty and
the sarne has been prod'aioe:l_ at 'I3W.3 is the scribe of
the Will and so__far aswtihe, letters'."*E'Xs..iP.'V'1O to p.13 are
concerned, D\7l-'pl? «':states::*.th§at .re'spondent once had sent
Rs.500--,£l(')h'throiligh tiothe petitioner and that he would pay
the balance So, he does not support the
version of V_vpetitionerV"'that the amount collected by the
'~petitio'ne:r-lthrough" D'W'.2 from the respondent is towards the
rent of .p"ren'lises. DW.2 admits the writing the letters
Ens l5'.'h1() to to the petitioner. So. in the circumstances,
'xthough petitioner relied upon Exs.P.1O to P. 13, they do not
A fiiidieate that the amount collected by l3W.2 payable to the
' petitioner was towards the rental of the premises. When DW2
it the custodian of this document and when he speaks about
oz;
16 - HRRP NO. 4227/01
the contents and states that the amount collected was not
towards the rent, the evidence of PW2 is diluted.
It is relevant to note that PW.2 is none else tha__n'thpe_:son--
in«~law of the petitioner. There is close re1ationsh.ip '
petitioner and PW.2. Thereby, thedevldence" Vibe
interested version and in this context, 1f;'tir;eiVe\f;=de'nee
respondent is looked Into, DW'l has iiegard..to
oral agreement of sale and thoughithere is inconsistency
as regards the sale coiisiiderzlttiognidlh h.e»..i'"does not admit the
relationship as a tenant of pVetitio'n'vprerni'ses. He relies on
the evidence o£"D'ws-"2 topfifand 'asV:Vs'tat'ed=: earlier, Dw.2 is the
person who the Will after its execution by
Dw_2 and 'Dw~.zi is _tiié s.cji~;5e of the said W111 at Ex.D.1 and
DW.34_;islVtli.e atte'sti_ng witness and DW.5 is the son of DW.2 and
is of Sri.lVE.Y.Narayanasastry, Advocate, who is
Aalso«.ianlAwitness to the Will at Ex.D. 1.
ffhe perusal of Ex.D.1 reveals about the execution of
the Will Venkataramana Setty on 51" August 1979. He had
-- il.'.--no:1sst1es and deceased Smt.Kamalamma the petitioner was his
'glsilster and there is reference about an oral agreement of sale
DC
V' "resp'o.r.ld6I1at.
17 HRRP NO. 427/01
between himself and the respondent and also states that an
amount of Rs.15,000/-- is due to the respondent towalrhds the
sale consideration. He has stated that from the said--.ainoLi.n,t"of
Rs.l5,000/--, an amount of Rs.5,000/~ shall_.be:"'stpen_t~ for
obsequies after his death and reinvaininyg
Rs.10,000/~ was payable to his is
that to prove Ex.D.1, the resooriderit scribe
the attesting witness and also of Senior advocate
who was an attesting "Land the son is
examined to on the will and
thereby, the for "the._:1'€Vspondent claims that in
View of lWilEV_.Van'd4llVti1.eleyidencewled by him, he states that
this material-clearly' there was no jural relationship
of landlord u.t.enantVl"' between the petitioner and the
" as the procedure to be adopted in these
proceedings concerned, Section 42 L2)" of the 1999 Act,
V reads as under:
V "Subject to any rules that may be made
it tinder this Act and the other provisions of this
Act, the Court shall, while holding an inquiry in
t1,
18 HRRP NO. 427/O1
any proceeding before it, follow as far as may be___
the practice and procedure of a Court of SmaH._d;_p_
Causes, including recording of evidence."
So as per this provision, it is the summ.a'ryVp.roeedure..
which has to be adopted by the Court:vvfhi!e'..dea1ing--witii.,rh..ie
petitions under the Act and _such"--proceedings,. this
has no jurisdiction to declare of the
Will. So also, there is a coiitent_ion'p_by'respondent that there
is an oral agreement of this Court also
cannot decide astogppthe ofthejysaleiiigreement and more
particularly, events which require
reference 'at' this:psta'g%:';--
14. if of the proceedings before this
Court.;'the responddent instituted a suit in o.s.No.:79/2001
"seek'm,§, relief ofspecific performance of the agreement of
ddfsaler-arid.ialosovdfforsinjunction. The copy of the judgment and
decree produced by the respondent and the copy of
the decree tnas been produced by the petitioner. This suit was
V"instit1ited on 12.10.2001 and came to be decreed on
if :1Qf1{).2006. So there is a decree for specific performance of the
Tagreement of sate referred to supra in favour of the respondent
54.
19 i-{RR}? NO. 427/01
and the petitioner herein is the defendant in the said suit.
Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of specific pei*foi'rnai:ice
of the contract, the present petitioner has prefer-Dedlaii
R.A.No.182/2006 and the said appealmis pending' ti1e"fi1e»e.of
the Civil Judge, (Sr. 1311.}. Madhiigirige..SoA'=theCresponderit
having now approached the Civilfifourtl for 2: Vdecree: h1aving_i'
obtained the decree in his favour,:l"«rio not thatvfthis Court
in the summary proceedings the validity of the
said decree which has 'been, sut;-sequent to these
proceedings. 'lthatjfltliere is a complicated
question about the parties and that
cannot proceedings which are summary
in nature; '-- V I C it
At thensame time, the petitioner has filed O.S.
the Court of the Civil Judge, Madhugiri and
the "_the:ai'hended plaint has been produced wherein he
C it _ has s'oug.--ht for a declaration that he is the absolute owner of
H N C' suit schedule property which includes the petition premises
C' , andfor vacant possession of the same, in addition to the mesne
profits. It is submitted by the counsel that this suit was
"dismissed for default and Misc.8/2007 is pending for its
sZ_
20 HRRP NO. 42?/0:
restoration. So, as could be seen from these subsequent
events between the parties, they have now diverted thernse'lves
to the Civil Court for seeking the relief and
from the evidence led by both the parties, _-in"'ri1:}":considered
o inion, there is a com licated ue'stior1"w'hicih retuiresr---..to'?1.be
decided by the Civil Court.
16. The counsel for thei'reVspondent has"'i'el'ied on the
decision reported in Begum Vs.
Shahzadi) wherein consideration the
provisions of wherein there was
concurrent..fi_n'd.i_ng:s1 below in favour of the
tenant andnit that Section 43 makes it
mandatoryV"fo_rtti;heV' stop all further proceedings and
directgthe'.partiesxflto approach the competent Court of Civil
juris_diction. for"-declaration of their rights. He also relied upon
the in ILR 2007 Kar 3'74 {R.Abbaiah Reddy
C it _ and lotheifslvsffl Udaya Chandra} wherein the jural relationship
..1a.nd lord and tenant was disputed and both the Courts
. below-dismissed the petition and this Court held that there was
grcomplicated dispute regarding the title and it directed the
six
2% HRRP NO. 427/oi
parties to approach the competent Civil Court for declaration of
their rights.
17. So. now, as could be seen from the ;p"roVfisi.o1is___of
Section 413. it reads:
"-43. Dispute of relationship lo'rd._.:a11d._r it
tenant: __ it _ l V A'
(1) Where in any proceeding before the
contention is raised the of
relationship. landlord' tenant" as
between the parites"it.l:a'wful for the
Courtto accepitttihev lease or
whe§'reA'ip:jthere::-_isino of lease, a
of payment of
__rentlgaurportedlta__besigned by the landlord
V a" pri;*na>facie~~._ei/idence of relationship and
Toceed to h,eai:.~'lthe Case.
..... <4 .
,[a}.,__"ati1e'"'lease pleaded is oral and either party
it relationship, and no receipt or
~a¢knowledgement of payment of rent as
referred to in sub--section {1} above is
produced; or
(b) in the opinion oi' the Court there is reason
to suspect the genuine existence of the
94
22 HRRP NO. 427/01
document of lease or the receipt or H
acknowledgement of payment of rent H p
the Court shall at once stop all
proceedings before it and direct the parties ll".
approach a competent Court of "civil '
for declaration of their rights." I
18. So, as could be seen-..__fron1" the abc-.v'e"Vp.rpvisi;ons,
admittedly, there is no written agreenient of between the
'parties and also there nof: Further, the
respondent claims that thereV:is..a1il__lor_al ='a-gi~e;é;:;n¢ntg of sale. The
Will also refers 'such agree'rnen.t: and taking into
considerationthej_appreciatio.i;. the 'evidence lead by both the
parties, 1:;van1__ there is a civil dispute which
cannot be ldetlerrninedwiiidleriutlie provisions of the Act of 1999
by adopting suminarylprocedure.
' is contended that prior to the filing of the
petition; a "was issued to the respondent and that the
[responoient.«Vdid' not reply the said notice, in View of the material
V' :.p1aced._on record and its appreciation in the above paras. the mere
and the inference to be drawn is itself not sulficient to
" the existence of the jural relationship of landlord and
t><'Z._
24 E-IRRP NO. 427/01
21. Taking into consideration the appreciation of the
material on record by the trial Court and also the Revisional
Court, I do not find any such grounds to set aside the Vfinhdings.
In that view of the matter to prove the jural
landlord and tenant between the parties, thev_h-ave:.A_1tol'4
declaration from the Civil Court. As:v'theb'petitione'r--
instituted the suit for declaration titlelvand "alg.§.,,ifor--..p
possession, in case if he SuCC€€d'S._>l:li~,th€ said suii: and gets the
possession, there is no vn'ecessity"'i"or_:'him_to further prosecute
this revision petition and tli-e.'V1"sarr;_é".1;1»:r1'e;._ in case, if the
respondent gets the decreelin his tire-re may not be any
necessity? for hirnjto app1'oac.h this Court.
22. already beiore the Court,
depending'.uponl"t'h_e:decision in the said cases, a right has to
be re_s'erved.'to"zthe parties to approach this Court in case if any
orde1';..under"_the'p1'ovisior1s of this Act is essential for them.
Though the provisions of Section 43 clause (b)
that the Courts shall at once stop all further
___"':proeeedings before it and direct the parties to approach the
ldxcolmpetent Civil Court for declaration of their rights, as the
25 HRRP NO. 42'?/OI
parties are already before the Civil Court, they can seek the
relief before the said Courts and in case, if they need "Order
of this Court after the termination of the proceedings:'_'inj;~the
Civil cases, they are at liberty to approach and V'
reopen these proceedings. In that View of 'the r:1at:ter,:i.answer é
Point No.1 -- directing the partie_s:'to. get .ti_jAe"deicla::atio'ri.by
from the Civil Court;
Point No.2 -- reseryitig tlheypparties to approach
this Court after the tenninlatiobn _of;Vth'e.pr:oceedings in the
Civil Court,"if_t_hey require; '
Point theifnegativehand proceed to pass the
f0:lV'1ow§ng:.VV v at
ORDER
.. 'revision=p:etition is disposed of by stopping all further proceedi.ngs Court and directing the parties to get declarationa"_"_of rights in the competent Court of Civil _ jurisdiction and reserving them a right to approach this Court afiseri_the"termination of the proceedings in the Civil Court, if need an order of this Court.
sic 26 HRRP NO. 427'/Oi As the parties are litigating in this Court since from 1981, the Courts in which the proceedings periaininglyitlta the petition premises between the parties are pending of the cases as early as possible, so as to give 'an ix: li:h.e_& long pending litigation.
piJUDGE JL