Karnataka High Court
Sri. Divya Ranjan vs Smt. Maria Deepika on 18 June, 2024
Author: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
Bench: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:21613
RFA No. 754 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 754 OF 2024 (RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI. DIVYA RANJAN,
S/O PARMANAND,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
NEW NO. 4/1, GOVER ROAD CROSS,
WARD NO.85, SARVAGNA NAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. S N SAMEER., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. MARIA DEEPIKA,
D/O LATE ALPHONOSO. S,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
2. ANTO SANTOSH .A.,
S/O LATE ALPHONOSO. S,
Digitally signed
by SUMITHRA R AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
BOTH ARE CHILDREN OF
LATE ALPHONOSO. S,
R/AT NO. 251, 4TH CROSS,
SHAMANNA LAYOUT OIL MILL ROAD,
LINGARAJAPURA,
BANGALORE - 560 084.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 14.02.2024
PASSED IN OS.NO.1836/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE XXIV
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU,
DECREEING THE SUIT FOR VACANT POSSESSION.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:21613
RFA No. 754 of 2024
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the defendant/appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 14.02.2024 in O.S. No.1836/2015 passed by the XXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-6) at Bengaluru, (henceforth referred to as 'the Trial Court'), whereby the suit filed for ejectment and possession is decreed, directing the defendant/appellant to hand over vacant possession of the schedule property. Therefore, the defendant/appellant is in appeal.
2. The rank of the parties before the trial court is retained for easy reference and convenience.
3. It is the case of the plaintiffs/respondents before the trial court that the plaintiffs/respondents are children of Late. Alphonoso.S who purchased the schedule property and thereafter the plaintiffs/respondents being the children of the deceased, have inherited the suit schedule property. It is the further case of the plaintiffs/respondents that the defendant/appellant is in illegal possession of the suit schedule property. The defendant/appellant might have been inducted illegally by the previous tenant of the suit property. Therefore, -3- NC: 2024:KHC:21613 RFA No. 754 of 2024 they filed the suit for eviction. The plaintiffs/respondents issued a legal notice on 07.01.2024 asking the defendant/appellant to quit the suit schedule property, but the defendant/appellant did not vacate from the suit property. Therefore, the tenancy of the defendant was terminated with effect from 31.01.2014 and therefore, they filed a suit for eviction.
4. The defendant/appellant has filed a written statement, denying the relationship between the plaintiffs/respondents and the defendant/appellant as the owner and tenant. It is the case of the defendant/appellant that the plaintiffs/respondents have not executed the lease agreement, but the lease agreement was executed between the defendant/appellant and the Smt. Philomena @ Susheela, As said, Smt. Philomena @ Susheela was the agreement of sale holder. Therefore, the defendant/appellant is not a tenant under the plaintiffs/respondents, but the defendant/appellant is a tenant under Smt. Philomena @ Susheela and defendant/appellant has paid amount to the said Smt. Philomena @ Susheela. Therefore, it is contended that the plaintiffs/respondents are not owners, and the defendant/appellant is not a tenant under them, over the suit schedule property.
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:21613 RFA No. 754 of 2024
5. Based on the pleadings, the trial court has framed the following issues:
(1) Whether the plaintiffs prove that defendant is illegal trespasser of suit property? (2) Whether the plaintiffs prove that suit schedule property requires for their bonafide use and occupation?
(3) Whether defendant proves that, he is tenant under Smt. Philomena @ Susheela under valid lease agreement dated 13/03/2023 and there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between plaintiffs and himself?
(4) Whether plaintiff is entitled for the relief of possession of suit property?
(5) What decree or order?
6. The plaintiff No.1 got herself examined as PW.1 and got marked 13 documents as per Exs.P.1 to P.13. On the other hand, the defendant/appellant neither examined any witness nor got marked any documents.
7. The point that arise for consideration is:
"Whether the judgment and decree passed by the trial court requires interference by this court?"
8. The plaintiff No.1 /respondent No.1 in her evidence as PW-1 has stated that she is the owner of the suit property and -5- NC: 2024:KHC:21613 RFA No. 754 of 2024 produced a sale deed dated 17.04.1996 stating that her father had purchased the said suit schedule property. Therefore, the plaintiffs/respondents inherited the suit schedule property from their father. Exs.P.7 to P.9 are documents with proof of Khatha certificate and Khatha extract, which prima facie prove that the plaintiffs/respondents are the owners of the suit schedule property. The only defence of the defendant/appellant is that the defendant/appellant is not the tenant under the plaintiffs/respondents but is a tenant under one Smt. Philomena @ Susheela. The said Smt. Philomena @ Susheela was the holder of the agreement of sale, but the said sale did not come into execution of the sale deed. Therefore, no right could be accrued to the said sale holder, Smt. Philomena @ Susheela. She said that she would become the owner of the property. On the other hand, the plaintiffs/respondents have proved that they are the owners of the suit property. But the admitted fact is that the defendant/appellant is in possession as a tenant and according to the defendant/appellant termination of tenancy under one Smt. Philomena @ Susheela. Smt. Philomena @ Susheela clear agreement holder of sale cannot become owner of the property. The plaintiffs/respondents have proved that they are owner of suit schedule property. -6-
NC: 2024:KHC:21613 RFA No. 754 of 2024 Therefore, considering all the aspects the trial court is correct in decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs/respondents for eviction. Therefore, it needs no interference. Further the notice issued for termination of tenancy is found to be lawful. Viewed from other angles, the judgment and decree passed by the trial court is just and proper, and there is no infirmity in the finding recorded by the trial court. The appeal lacks merits in the case so as to admit the file for hearing. Hence, the appeal is dismissed at the admission stage itself. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.
9. However, the defendants are given time to vacate the premises within a period of six months from today.
Sd/-
JUDGE BKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11