Mary George Dead By Children vs N D H Enterprises on 20 April, 2012

[Cites 8, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Mary George Dead By Children vs N D H Enterprises on 20 April, 2012

933:9. BY yrs CO«C}W'NERS

2. Ha Ex/IARUTHL

2. ANJAN KUMAR,  
saws OF ND. I~{ANU';\sL%NTE{ARAYAPP$.  REsp§:<:~:>:a;:~::f;:::

(BY SR1. RD' SURA.NA,ADV.  
33:3 §5%$§§%%%ﬁ:é'*§;§«§§ 323:; :'3.%.?%§§;§éa §§~:;::**:ga§~».. "
3%" %:E2§§:&3*§:§%:;2  gagéggﬁ -¢:?.§E§;:"§:f§,;%.'.§} M  .4  
THIS HRRP IS FILED UNDER iSECT1QjN'46'{ 1 )-.Q1~i KR .gxc:T
AGAINST THE ORDER DATE:D:°15.4_.2'004,'~. 'PASSED. "EN

HRC.NO.564/1999, ON THE FILE OF 'THE C5H1EiF'.JL'IE5(1E',"a'

COURT OF SMALL CAUSES,  THE-
PETITON FILED UNDER SECTIC§'NV"'*2I (1)  KRC ACT

HUNDER SECTION 27 (2) (1') OF  AND-AVLLOVVING THE

PETITION UNDER SECTIQNV5 OFHE.'KR";'X.CT FOR'E'\}'ICTION,

THESE HRRPS HAV:N«::a zéaézéiixé' E:32x:§;I;3" AND RESERVED,
COMING ON FOR_PRONOUNC--EMENfI' '<3? ORDERS, THIS BAY,
THE COURT  EOLL()}'\FIN(3».;'*_.__ '  '

The--saTv rAév:'_sio"r:;3;;.petit,i0--:1S 2113-.::iv1i"eci:ed against the orders
passed by the VC7Q:£:-§.}Vb€1éay"erdéring the patiiieners ta: hami

aver VaCantvV'§!.QS€€SSiQI}'Qf  schedule premises; under Seciisn

 5 sf E{eVrnat;éi£<aARe1:'€; Act; 2999 {hereinafter Caliéé as 'the

   

E'  E:-gjgéirties zzgﬁi be reférzéé as per thﬁir mu}: §$f$E"€

 .  :iTii:€ Tziai C%:Esuré: is avaéé ::';€a>m*@::i$r:::%»

:'_4"'E;séa:*i:§g Cgrpesraéien ?%;'es9i§ 331$ ENE, ?=sEissi§:1 R§gd, %a§1g3.k::'e-

  Eha gsiifiaaeys hsrsir: am {he t€1':8;f:§S Q5 "C%:.2s::e:'s"



5
psiiiioners is malafide and ihai there is :13 aged E§:V~<i:é-:r§ii;IJish
the canstmction anti put up a hate} 

grounds, they sought for the dismissalpf thé  _  " .
5. These two petitions were c1ubb'e;d_W;iTi:h;«HRC_;_  arid

5632/1999 and cammon exridenge \xréi;~3V__1<;i-:*ig  BC) ﬁv"'}.:' 'Eh.iE u
attorney holders 9f the pE3titi0I1VéI'[SEi?iT(§r€t  anti'
2 and the documents V  _:P.2'3_.W<~::rt€% "r:f12«.rii;ed. The
iejnants were examined ag  1  ihe pewer of
attorney was gdiiﬁittcd  "'I"1'ial Court after
hearing the  appreciation of the
materialv_Qn.r§iCVo%d :}':3::<V:V~:it§0ners have not proved the
requirerﬁgnf on "the ground under Section .21

{1} {h} ariﬁ  c:f_iE+e_ Arc:t.44{i1nder Sectisn 2? {r} 9f the New

V AC?) ?a}§:d the péiiiiéns avers dismissaég an 316 greund unéar

 2§i1i::¢e'. $a%db".A§m€r§:3isr:s ars zsencsmeé, Sui, ii hsié '£113.: ihe

;i§r;::a'ni'§§s3:%:2 :3§éj€>§i§e:1 5 sf 32$ $2' V ACE is 8;§§§€:8f{}i€ arid as

V V' _ ¥tE;":€2*é'~.Was:g'iiiéﬁsaih GE ihsq": Esizanis sand 1.32% LES csszglé GCC':2§}£

.  ﬁg? ;j;3r€:::°;--;:ées @335; fax' 3 §€ri5é 3? fivs §'e3:"'§5§, gramaé avéciian

 _ é:::?é;§::=:..3€e:':i$:"§ 5 sf 'abs Eéaw éca as like gerigé 9? {E223 greaze Ezaé

E E$'x,.«~»..,_%



W"

  Vhfeerieeezaéiaiévee er: record gveuid he the ieneszzie ae éefieeg

expireée siggrieased by {he eviction ereier under Seé;.t_iemj';"::"e. ef  ' .

New AC1, the ienasms have approaehecfihis' '$es2;.r1i in _ff€*Ji?5i01I*}V;' 

8* E have heard the learned eeuh=3.e'I'£or bath, the tpaifthievseh 

The points that arise for my eonsiiriiveréntion ate:  

L Whether I;1ie..V_Tﬁa}'h'C0xhfL eerhmitted' efror
in directing the €':\x;ii;¥;i.,(')i1"' under
Section 5 Of the New.;%_e*:.?:f _ _ 'H. _   J

2. ¥'v'het her ggthige =*COuft'--:_"iI1___ f£he revision
petitions"Vfi3ee.§i£A:'w-by __fe'na1'its:V_'eQ}:1d exercise the
revi$_1'Qha'1~. :3p{eere    validity of the
fincihingsh: rejeehng the request: for
evieiioh._uhdef':'Seeti<jh*-.Té;ﬁ_. (2) (r) of the New Act is
e<:>nce15i;ed'?_ VV  I  é

.' V _ 33 iV?:e:i1'er %§f1€T peiitienere have made ea':
V-'e;§13?2,.gre:1hds  'e'eﬁEVfer interference in the erdere. ef

 "eVie::e:2';3_e;eeed by {he 'E31131 Ceurt?
  :::e..~~ee::'{en'£ié>:1 of the éeamed; eeuheeé for' {he

'  §eti:§e:::e§s.~ ihésii 'the §§QVi,SiGﬁS Sf Seeiiezi § ef the New AC':
 "~._%:'eJi::e%, *sev§_%e;e}<e{§, as {he éeaeh eé éhe {eneﬁie in heih ihe eases

'  %3;e_.:_~:;.§>:9€'§>:* ﬁe the CQIIEEEEEEECQEIESIEE eé' ihe Rees Ace ahé ehe legs;

3*» /
':§«<»M..,%\_"J



under the previsiens ef the Sid Act. §€i1{':f3i they eoniehd ihai
{he Trial Ceurt was not justified ii': granting' €ViC"E.'i.OI:ji"-':'§%ii{1,i:Ii€T
Section 5 of the New Act. It is their further c{:>r1ii(-?*iif:i.i:'i'<;"':1»*i_'
far as the dismissal of the petitions iiiider =

the New Act the finding has aitainied 

cannot revise the said findings.ru:jith0ui._a"1*eVisioh the Ieitiﬁih

lord challenging the dismissal  peii':ir;ur:1s':0ri}the said

ground;

8. Per conii'-a,'   ihe respondents

contend that §Ena4i_1i;'&'1diVes,--.3'£iiev ilieigieilmiepreseiitatixres can at the }the premises for a peried sf five yé=§1rs__'i*2_o 'right to reside in the petiiien premises after expiry e:".fiea:eV.'yeare and therefore? the Trial Ceurt was juetifiegi in dtireeiiiig {he evietien 0:2 ihis grauhd. ii: ie hie fz,ii*i:hef eeiiiehiieii 'sihai zinﬂef the revieieiiai pewere Veeied Wiih ihie i:§Ci.,1;'Ai5§Z-.?,:";"i'«";vééi3"V{"§%é§C'§i@ﬂ 4% ef éihe Eéew Aeii, there is uniimiéeé jsiiieéieiieij' ' wiiih a View ie {is giieiiee is :he eaziies, 'iize " if'rRevisiene;i'vCé:::i:'i ear"; gage apereprieie eréere age' 33 ':he ieiié "'i;e::'::ie«Ei1_e.:é:e preveei {he need {if :he premises fez" eiemeiiiien enci Vi fC;;3$i;?E,i€{§§n ef a. iieiei eerepiex, ever: miiheui eheiiengiiig ihe ge-

Said findings" as there is ample znatczriai on retard ta prpve the need, this Caurt can grant the relisf cf €ViCUlOI'"L €\{€I1:'.Oﬁ~~.':£h€ gmund. under Secrticn 2'? (2) {r} of the New Act.

9. Reg. Point No.1: The juralMfélatigrtshtp.:tj'ét'a:§3Veti ttie parties as land lord and tenant is n0t:'d_jLé"p_1gzted. .'t_jt1't}er tt1<§'E*I§:iv.u Act, the provisions of Sections oft' 5.12.2001 and thta rematimxng thaws <':<$i1i'c:-Aintcr force on 31~12~2oo1. Till then, of the ma Act, which were appljﬁabte VV'1"3tef0re the Court. Indtsputed1y,§_t11§é land lord under the Old Act an the graund under Secticrn (.1) when the said preceadings werzs:

pénéimgg tits. Zftiew Act force: by repeating tha Old Act. .._:Li;";,_:i€:* 51a":;:::;5{b3 cf Sastiorz i?C% §f ths New Act, the V';:3:*a,*e2='ié;i§%::S..':s"f .ﬁ2§§3.C': 8:376 very much appizlcafbie ta tits penéing §1'G"LfE€t'f§f1gS"3.;:;"2iZ':1;: Ciauge {E3} which is zxeievant is Extracted VA t é ' he:*eu:':<:i€~r' V "F6. {*9} 3}} $333233 and §'f${3€€§§§'"ig£% Qthey that'; '"t'§"§sS€ ?€f€i"?¥3i:i ta in ciatzgﬁ €33 gwnéing 3: tbs sammencenzsnt sf tfais; 59% befere times: Cezztmtlerp Ev" '*-~».4.) Depuzy C'€3}f}1I"£iiSS1OI1€I§ Bivisieriai Ct3IflI1'iiSSiOI1€i:g Court Dieiriei; Judge er the High Ceurt er authority, as the case may be in f€Sp€C'C_..Qf:".1iI%Ti{%r:j premises ':0 which this Act applies continued and disposed eff by such':"Ceriir0i1er;', Deputy Cemmissioner, DivisiionalhéxC.0i::irriiss1:ei:er_i,:V«VA T Ceurt, District Judge orthe V CO1.II'£_{').IA"'Gth€ii'1.F' V authority in accordance 'the A'prg:_>vis_idh_s "this:

Act."

80, under the abovesaidr iirovisieni, fI'i*iaI Court had the authority to Continue With"the'pro<:¢eed'irigsV,T3;e.i the provisions of the New A<:t_{#;ereEr'i'h'a,pp1icai:»1e te ijthe uipeiitien premises and therefore, there'::-«x'»?gins for the Trial Court to proeeedﬁwith _theee .e3;'e.es'; -

E1. prQ1}isierrih...u~~ihe nature ef Section 5 of the New Ac: v_:22s=5i::,eV _i:iiredue"ed;V___ferv the first iirne, wherein it prevideé V'!_Vi:ihe:*§iV:abi§i':y'<.._&ef___ éierzeney arié {he right ef the iegai re§:re:2e:2ﬁ:a;:i%;%e ésaveeeéizrzie fer a perieé ef five yeare {rem ihe *V::*';aie 'hf. {he hﬁeaih ef ihe éehzzhi ariﬁ ihe Saié Seeiiier: 5 'eX%:;a::%:e§ :V};§iI"€1lIE§€f' fer {he sake ef C{}Z'}'f€§'1§€I}{3€i Enheritafaility ef tenancy -~ {E} :1: the even? ef ﬁeaih ef e. 'E€::Z8§1"L the righi ef "§€'i1'i&11€:}é' ﬁea the right if éeners: was zesérieied ﬁe five jgeere fee E8 shali ﬁeveive far 3. peried of five years from the date ef his death in his sueeeeeers in :he fo1Ie\a«*i1i:g"'»e. order, nameiy :~

(a) Spouse; A' _ (13) Son or daughter or where {here 3.-;*e"'.:1.:<.j:fL1'1: 'S»:V§n-- _ and daughter both oftheﬁi % V' ' {(1) Parents; i H

(d) Daughter-«ir1~1aw. be_ii:--g the wie1oW <:>f.:f1AiAs._'}3--v:¢r:~:H--

deceased son; "

Provided' i_f_t.f1at .§u.eeeS$0r has Qrdinarﬁy been ' On businesg' in §';fie ' the deCee,é_ed:;1i{e1j1a1i:is a, of his farﬁfly {lie ef~ his Qeéith and was \' vdependenf the ' deceased' ienan: :

that :3. righi: :0 tergarliey. sha§3_ S devolve upon a.

ee:.1eeeee'e-r ﬁV': eaee such successor er his Eégaexiee er ef his depenﬁen: sen er is evming er eeezzpying a V;.éfe'i".§1.i$eé$'in 'éhe ieeei area if} releﬁzien te ex: -jgfernieee ie1:f* Efe: ﬂee éﬁresi iiﬁéﬁ enéee tee afereeeici previeiene :3? {he is 1:3 T. petition, Therefore, as er; the date when the C:€3th.H:'{3f.:t$§§?;§1{ teak piece in bath the Cases, it wee the (3113 fereee Furtherr as stated abeve, the't"'c:}efi«r1it'_ior1'eifteharrt' "as ' provided in Section 3 (r) 0f the Old:'A<:t;'_ine1uviiesthe spouse or the son or daughter or fatfzer or».t11Qther ;3f--~.theV.L deceased and therethre? the teiiethts who intt both the petitiens as reSpVende:'I"1'tS".ereujthe 0r'i§iha1'VVtenants as defined under the Old Act, One tenant W215 prior to the V' gjgath of the other tenant was of the New Act. At the cost of "t0~:"efer here that Sections 1, 3 and 66 thto force on 5.12.2001 and the remaining Se_etiehé Qt came inte three eh 31~t2--2{301. 'therefere;'~the efthe tenants was at the time when the V. 7 V _A(;tt _tr:..feree and the defihitieh at tenant urzder Seetieh 3{:%:m;7:" " thetudee the surviving speuse, sen, §e'eghter,.~tEather er rnether ef the deeeaeeé tenant. 'E'§':e1*efere9 ' the eaéé vgeeeeees as Wett are the i€I':E¥.i'§ES uheer the Gigi Act ahﬁ V.'e.e:2ttrt:;:e te he ee ever; efter the eerhihg thte feree ef the tﬁfexv tea e ,3 E8 psmtsai of the provisions of tbs New Ant does not rsvsat the said proviso retrospective and therefore: the order o£.Véx:_i'oi:.§on passed by the Court below on the ground under the New Act is both erroneous and illegsl.

18. Reg. Point No.2 : The pé=%;1tiqm=§;€1 had sought eviction of the tenants<__.on t19ieV_g'i'ounr:}'ii:1d:<;jr Sc_:;j(:tion_ L. 21 {1} (h) and U) of the Old Act tgsssgctgon V2'? 1f.{2;)'V'(r} the New Act. The petitioner led tne reasons for eviction' But the Trial iootitions so far as the ground uﬂd€I;.'{€}j£s.CtiOl¥t2it the Old Act ie¢€a9 Section 27 (ii) "granted eviction under Section Vt}1e;v5}7}e\x;:'EVZXCt';"E1318 n~.L%1'iis context a submission is made byzthé..1esrnéd'»':_soot1nsi::i.:'£or the Land iord that though 9, revision petition "is. Vnottftlétftchallsnging tho findings rejecting "tifte for siﬁovtisn; this Court in the present revision '§;%siiti'on_ i:2oE:'--.into tho said finsing and pass appropriate o:*d.'ers"«anﬂA '.V'{i:s:*sfore, ins toot: tins Court through at} that ' '.svidsnés tits groans unﬁsr Section 2: {E} {h} snﬁ {1} of "..t'§%é Eiott Es gassd ystisnos on tho aﬁscision of ihﬁ Agsx "reported; in AER 3968 SC 543 {Swastik 0:1}; Mitts Lté. vs. , 53% IE2?

exereiemg the pewers made"? Section 397 €Zr.PeC; <::1:i'~e_:%:e:*e§se the ::1he1'et1t pewers and grant apprepriate reliefs.' So, on the basis of the diettgtn Court in the decisions referred to suprétg. it ishie "e£:nteriti01*1a that though the land lord ehawllenéedﬂféthe order' rejecting his requeet for"'ex{teti0'time:'1e--:the'°'g1founctVtiritier Section 21 (1) (11) and U) cf the oide.'Ac:;*¢g1n__..g;s:§;;:1"_ the said finding without filing Ea; «§t..é§;i-3i0r§;A_ peti_t,§on.VAéL§:;p:i1:1vetifthe rejection ef the request.

The pr(${rié3:ion_S:'«.of*.Seet_ionj 46 of the New Act read as under:

. A "iii;-.Revi$i0h evil} The High Court may, at time ea1't'tt§'1'*"':ind examine any ertier passed _¢ez--v__§':§eeede.ing taken by the Ceurt at" Small __ Ceurt cf Civil Judge {Senier A feferred te in items {I} and {ii} ef Ciause {e} e§ Seetietz 3 fer the }3Ei§"§G-SE' eatéefjying étseif A' ' es the iegahfty er eerreetnese ef eueh eréer er Vt giéeeeedimg etié may pass ezzeh erﬁer $2:

I"€f§3'»€I}€€ theeete 3.3 it thmke fit," gt 55 2': 1 §ég'g«"*va.»,.,¢ 20 Under the prevision, this Send has the autherity___to sue mote {:33 for anti examine the order passed or preeeeg:ii:§g«_4ia.1:er: by the Court beiow to satisfy itself as :0 eorreetness 0f such order and may pass such.'efdef'_§mn'i*e{§renige" . thereta as It thinks fit. (emphasis su1:3p11e_dsb:§z A' So far as the revisions filedhereundef ebneernede ii is not in the exercise ofvfhe _i'v;i:ii.sdie{i<j1'1-Aefihis Court and these revisions havek a".§L:'&ii1eA.::f:stanee of 21 party challenging the firyﬁjing that the said finding is of this reason that in the SC 43 (Delhi Electric Supply ..{}:.V13;é;sje»gﬁti'£§evi and another} Vv'h6I'€in§ the Apex C0urt"he1Vdtie'_;ﬁ'1e provisiens of Order 41 Rule 33 CFC the qzjesﬁens iziaised znusi preperiy arise (mi 0:" the jeeigmezie sf .j§:}:--e Eewer Ceuri; and if ihey aye se raised, {he z§§pe?e§e§e"€§ez;ré.Vzeeeié eeesidei" any ebjeeiien egaiﬁsé 3:23? ear': V V' _ sf §he'----_§u<§gﬁ:ef:i er decree of the Gear: beieire. E: is reievant is ,: :%;;§ieVe :_hai*f;i:.§e Ease isrdé by fiﬁeg e. reassign eeiiiéee rejeetirzg his " .res§hi,:e:::>*£i fer eeieiien en ihe ground zmdez' Seefiee 2}; ii} {£1} ané " '=§'jj§.--$;Zei Elééi eaése an}? qzzeséiens fer eensideraéisn 'egg {his Ceegré 'ex:

2} by filing a pmpe: zsvisian petitiozz. Though the ev:c:i0:§"-s:f;f:..ier same is be passéd in the yéar 2{}O2i§ Qnly W'h€I} _ taken up far hearing in thé year ':ng'hil;é submitting his arguments Challengeég :'{}K0'~e;:fi« below rejecting his request for; E2v._i_Ctiof1 Qf1" the s§;até«;§_ . supra. By not preferring a r€:Vis'i {511.V":ixi'§tVVIr1ir}423--Igégiéontégble time, he has 103': his right to 'far validity 0f the 0I'd€:1' on tI:1 e: saidAAVg:V§j'unLLf__VVpz'§:t time, a right accrues in fav0u 1' to retain their possession of the request of the land mm was (§r'o.§;_11;c1 Q_}:;i¢'Vr Section 21 m (h) and (j) of the O1€§--A;:i.. 'f€f€1'1'€d :0 supra, in none of the 08,363, ﬁié~Vg1;p€:s;;';.<3ej;.;fi'~"}§assed any Qrder adversg is the 'VV'é«:1tere1§f~9§..L:he re:/'i$i5e':1------:::'é§itioner and Setting asidefhe finding 'whisii the rsspenéegé in 31:25 saié mvisien; 3333 va}§:§if::§;! 9f 8L':}5 ':.;§:.:f%Té;:sé3?Vt" which hag 'Seen chafiiszxgad ﬁgs is 'Ge ioeked 'Ema ﬁg' ﬁ°1ié'fCC§}'"i'€€}{':, ef {he grezmﬁs iaken 33}: the gayiies 1:: '£316 A ;%é:;*§siL{::f:' 3536 ':h::: fqueséiaga E"3.iS€§ ihsrsin 813$ ih€:ef<:>:*€§ 1 am {$13 eC:2§}§I"}§{}:1 31/23,: $336 iézesigiezzg 1'€f€I°f€%§ is S':;§E'a £8 :19: appijg

1. , 1:3 aha faciss 0:: haaé. i" W 2% filing oroso ohjeotions in a Revigion Pemiion dooss not thoroforoo arise. "

So; the power Vested with the Couri L1ﬂCif2F'."1:f1Efv of Order 41 Rule 33 CFC cannot be ré»<;i'$iof1aI Court in a revision petition.

It is relevant to note land' HRCVV Nos.560, 561, 562 and':~5A64/'1'§§'g§.I/grid-._;pes;é"re§;§sions are proferred only against tho and 564/1999.

The tenant in in this revision petition. In? the provisions of Order the Apex Court in the $C 43 [Doihi Electric Simply Undertak1n§o%z_oe .Bnsan':";" and another} roferreci to supra. , heldirtratv ins on1f;*'£on_§tr?ain§ that we: could 866, may be these:

..par€i§é"v§3_¢fore tho iower Cour': shouio Too ihcsro bofore %':h::-- a7§p€§}3;':5o'~.€é3::rér "The qooséion raised Inns': §}'€}§€f"}§? arise

--o:.:i of {£33 .§é:§gr:1en'?: of rho Lows: Conri. if {hogs iwo '"Vr§qo;ir¢:noé::o aro rizsra "ins oépgsoiiato Cour: cooid consiﬁer any .'«h&'o'o:§é:o'%:i'fo:r:$ in unohsjlorzgoé gar? of rho jnégrnoni; or éeoren of ~ "me? Eower Court» §&:i';W

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court

Mary George Dead By Children vs N D H Enterprises on 20 April, 2012