Karnataka High Court
K.L. Vedamurthy vs M. Gopalachari on 15 July, 1998
Equivalent citations: ILR1998KAR2453, 1998(6)KARLJ341
Author: M.B. Vishwanath
Bench: M.B. Vishwanath
ORDER
1. Revision petitioner-Vedamurthy is the alleged landlord. Respondent-Gopalachari is the alleged tenant on the petition schedule residential premises.
2. In this revision petition the order dated 4-12-1990 passed on I.A. No. I by the H.R.C. Judge (Small Causes Judge (SCCH-1), Bangalore City) in H.R.C. No. 765 of 1986 has been challenged.
3. The petitioner-landlord claiming that he was the owner of the petition schedule premises, during the pendency of H.R.C. No. 765 of 1986, filed LA. No. I under Section 29(1) and (4) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act praying that further proceedings should be stopped since the tenant had not paid arrears of rent and that the tenant should be directed to deliver possession of the petition schedule premises.
4. The learned H.R.C. Judge rejected LA. No. I by the impugned order. The petitioner has challenged the order passed on I.A. No. I.
5. The learned H.R.C, Judge rejected LA. No. I filed by the petitioner on the ground that there was a complicated question of title between the parties and that the relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the respondent was not established.
6. The original admitted owner of the petition schedule property is one Kariyappa. The said Kariyappa had three sons, Veeranna, Lak-kappa and Ramu and a daughter Mallamma (W/o Nanjappa).
7. Veeranna died issueless. His wife predeceased him. Petitioner Vedamurthy is the son of Lakkappa. Ramalappa (S/o Mallamma), according to the respondent, mortgaged the property in favour of the respondent.
8. The case of petitioner-Vedamurthy is that the respondent is his tenant and the respondent was paying rent and has paid rent.
9. The petitioner claims that he is the heir to Veeranna and so he has become the owner of the property.
10. The respondent's case is that Ramalappa (S/o Mallamma and Nanjappa) mortgaged the property in his favour.
11. The case of petitioner-Vedamurthy is that he is the landlord and respondent-Gopalachari is his tenant. His further case is that respondent-Gopalachari has paid him rents to the petition schedule premises.
12. Respondent-Gopalachari (R.W. 1) has stated in his evidence that he had taken the suit premises on lease from Veeranna about 40 years ago and that after the death of Veeranna he had paid rents to Ramalappa (R.W. 2).
13. P.W. 3-Rameshmurthy is the son of Kuppuswamy (since deceased). This Kuppuswamy is the tenant of the premises adjoining the petition schedule premises. P.W. 3-Rameshmurthy has stated in his evidence that his father did not know how to fill up M.O. coupon and that he filled up the M.O. form and that Ex. P. 2 is the M.O. coupon in his handwriting which bears the signature of his father.
14. P.W. 3-Rameshmurthy has stated in his evidence that he filled up the M.O. form of the respondent also and Ex. P. 1 is the M.O. coupon in his handwriting and that it contains the signature of the respondent. There is nothing to show as to why P,W. 3 should swear falsely against respondent-Gopalachari. The evidence of P.W. 3 proves that M.O. coupon Ex. P. 1 bears the signature of the respondent, for the respondent having sent rent to the petitioner.
15. The petitioner has produced the receipt book meant to issue rent receipts to the tenants. This rent receipt book contains the counterfoils. P.W. 3-Rameshmurthy has stated in his evidence that one of the counterfoils bears the signature of his father, for his father having paid rent directly to the petitioner. He has further stated in his evidence that the counterfoil Ex. P. 3, on the reverse, contains the signature of the respondent.
16. There is nothing to show as to why P.W. 3, Rameshmurthy should swear falsely against respondent-Gopalachari.
17. From the discussion above it is clear that the proved facts establish that the respondent has paid rents to the petitioner.
18. "Payment of rent proves the relation of landlord and tenant". (Section 116 - Synopsis No. 22 in the Law of Evidence by C.D. Field (11th Edition, page 4474).
19. In a treatise on the Law of Estoppel by Melville M. Bigelow, at page 553, it has been stated, "payment of rent when unaccompanied by fraud or mistake establishes the relationship of landlord and tenant".
20. The definition of landlord as per Section 3(h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, insofar as it is relevant for our present purpose, says that a landlord means any person who is for the time being receiving rent in respect of any premises. In the instant case, at one point of time, even according to the respondent he was a tenant on the petition schedule premises. It is established that he has paid rents, after the death of Veeranna in 1973, to petitioner-Vedamurthy. In my opinion, this establishes the relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the respondent.
21. The respondent cannot disclaim that petitioner-Vedamurthy is his landlord. If Ramalappa has right in the petition schedule premises, as contended by the learned Counsel for the respondent, Ramalappa or any other person claiming interest in the property has to establish his right in separate proceedings. In these H.R.C. proceedings the respondent, who has paid rent to the petitioner, cannot be permitted to deny the relationship of landlord and tenant.
22. There are other surrounding circumstances to show that the respondent has paid rents to the petitioner. The case of the respondent is that Ramalappa mortgaged the property in his (respondent's) favour under Ex. R. 3 on 6-3-1974 and under the second mortgage deed Ex. R. 4 dated 10-12-1975.
23. The respondent prior to taking mortgage under Ex. R. 3 from Ramalappa, to whom did he pay rents? The respondent says that the petitioner is not the landlord. But he has not deposited the rents under Section 19 of the K.R.C. Act before taking the alleged mortgage from Ramalappa. Ex. P. 7 series, a number of tax paid receipts, show that the petitioner was exercising acts of ownership. Ex. P. 8 is the show cause notice issued to the petitioner by the Corporation to pay the tax. Ex. P. 4 is the mortgage created by Veeranna through whom the petitioner claims title. Ex. P. 4 shows that this mortgage has been discharged by petitioner-Vedamurthy. The petitioner has discharged another mortgage Ex. P. 5 created by deceased Veeranna in favour of Rathnamma.
24. The petitioner has produced Exs. P. 13 and P. 14, mortgage deeds created by Veeranna and discharged by himself (petitioner).
25. Under Section 116 of the Evidence Act, tenant-Gopalachari is estopped from denying the title of landlord-Vedamurthy, having paid rents to him.
26. The learned Counsel for the respondent relied on the decision of this Court in Pratapsingh v Jaibunnisa Begum. This was a case in which the tenant denied the title of the landlord. This was a case in which the tenant had not paid rents to the landlord for over 70 years. This Court dealt with a case of permanent lease of the year 1849. A permanent tenancy is created by local usage or is acquired by prescription. (AIR Commentaries, Volume III, 5th Edition, page 93, 11th line). In the absence of an agreement to the contrary a lease will be deemed to be one from year to year or from month to month, as in this case.
27. The authority relied on, which relates to permanent tenancy, is not applicable to the facts of the present case.
28. Though not cited, I have looked into B, Thammiah v K.V. Subba Rao and Mohammed Ibrahim v Mahabaobbi, lest the ruling I give should conflict with the earlier decisions rendered by eminent judges of this Court.
29. In the latter case it has been laid down that whenever there is a complicated dispute as to the title of the landlord or as to the existence of the tenancy, the Court functioning under the Act has power to refer the parties to a suit. This was a case in which the tenant was admittedly the owner at some point of time. This authority has no application to the facts of the present case.
In B. Thammiah's case, supra, a usufructuary mortgage was involved and it was a really complicated case of title and there was bona fide dispute between the parties as to the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant. This authority has also no application to the facts of the present case.
30. The learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on a number of documents to show that the petitioner was the absolute owner of the property. The learned Counsel for the respondent relied on some documents to show that Ramalappa was the absolute owner of the property. It is not necessary to pronounce in these summary proceedings on who has got absolute title to the petition schedule residential premises. These summary proceedings under the K.R.C. Act cannot be converted into an original suit for declaration.
31. To repeat, the fact that Ramalappa might have some right in the petition schedule property cannot be blinked at. To use the language of Field, J., in Loday Mollah v Kally Dass Roy, at page 246, ".... the suits for rent should not be complicated by bringing in third persons who claim adversely to the plaintiff, and raising, as between such third persons and the plaintiff, questions of title. . . . ".
32. Let me recapitulate. There is evidence to show that the respondent has paid rents to the petitioner and the petitioner has semblance of title to the petition schedule premises.
33. The stake involved in this case is not high but the point of law involved is serious, if not complicated.
34. For the aforesaid reasons, I am of opinion, the impugned order of the H.R.C. Judge is perverse and cannot be sustained. Accordingly, it is set aside. It is held that there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the respondent.
The revision petition is allowed accordingly and the matter is remanded to the Trial Court for further proceedings under the K.R.C. Act.