Karnataka High Court
Mohammed Ali Jangumiya Maniyar And ... vs Tanzeem Committee Mecca Masjid, ... on 21 June, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2000(5)KARLJ81
ORDER
1. In all these revision petitions, the petitioners-tenants have challenged the order dated 15-6-1999 in common order HRC Nos. 73 to 77 of 1994, on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Belgaum. Though, these matters had been listed for admission, I thought it appropriate to dispose of all the revision petitions on hearing the learned Counsel appearing for the contending parties herein. Therefore, all these matters are admitted and taken up for final hearing this day.
2. The petitioners herein are represented by the learned Counsel Sri S.W. Arbatti, whereas, the common respondent is represented by the learned Counsel Sri G. Balakrishna Shastry, since the matters had been listed after notice to the respondent.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioners Sri S.W. Arbatti had taken me through the common order that came to be passed by the IV Additional Munsiff, Belgaum, in HRC Nos. 131 to 133 and 135 to 137 of 1990. He further submitted that in passing the said order, the Munsiff while allowing the eviction petition filed by the respondent had directed to make over possession of four different portions of the shop premises within two months.
4. While taking me through the impugned order passed by the District Judge Sri S.W. Arbatti, further argued that the District Judge had allowed the eviction petition and further held that the original eviction petition filed by the respondent before the Munsiff was without jurisdiction and as such he would not have recorded a finding to the effect that there was a relationship of tenancy between the petitioners on the one side and the common respondent on the other. Therefore, he submitted that the observation made by the District Judge in the impugned order is liable to be set aside in allowing the petitions.
5. The learned Counsel for the common respondent Sri G. Balakrishna Shastry submitted that the finding by the District Judge with regard to the relationship of tenancy between the parties was based on the finding of the learned Munsiff in passing the order in the eviction petitions filed by his parties. Therefore, he submitted that there could not be a revision as against that finding before this Court. He further submitted that, when revision petitions filed by the petitioners before the District Judge came to be allowed, the petitioners would not have resorted to the instant revision petitions before this Court.
6. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced. It cannot be disputed before me that the learned District Judge while allowing the HRC Revision Petition Nos. 73 to 77 of 1994 did observe that there was relationship of tenancy between the petitioners on the one side and the common respondent on the other, no matter, that in passing the impugned order, he held that the learned Munsiff, who had passed the order in HRC petitions in question had no jurisdiction to pass the eviction order as against these petitioners. That he did in view of the fact that Section 2(7)(bb)(iii) of the Rent Control Act came to be amended by Act No. 32 of 1994.
7. If the District Judge had allowed the revision petitions filed by the petitioners herein before him on the ground that the original order passed by the Munsiff was without jurisdiction, I don't think that there was any justification on the part of the District Judge to make observation even with regard to the relationship of tenancy between the parties. According to me, he would not have made such an observation at all in the revision petitions in question particularly when he had come to the just and proper conclusion that the Munsiff had no jurisdiction to pass the eviction order.
8. In that view of the matter, the impugned order insofar as the observation of the learned District Judge with regard to the existence of the relationship of tenancy between the parties is set aside.
9. All these revision petitions therefore succeed and accordingly stand allowed.