Sri Anantswami S/O Govindswami vs Smt Radha Srinath W/O Late Srinath on 22 April, 2009

[Cites 31, Cited by 12]

Karnataka High Court

Sri Anantswami S/O Govindswami vs Smt Radha Srinath W/O Late Srinath on 22 April, 2009

Bench: S.Abdul Nazeer

 

 

%>7V"v»«. _  V  
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALC_¢'vRE-._ 

DATED 'm1s TI-iE 22%" DAY OF APRIL 2009?' '  '- " '

BEFORE

THE I-ION'BLE MILJUSTICE S.:=.ABD[I .I3 1§iA.ZEEz§.'    7

REGULAR FIRST APPEAL' Np.389/2006  1:;

Between:

Sri. Anantswami

S/0. Govinciswami
Aged about 46 years
R/a NCL273. 5"' Mam 
4"" Biock, Jayan3gai'ix_-' «. 1 ' ' _ * " 

Bangalore ««~ 56G'C}27ii_._':'. 'V _:       Appeilant.

(By Sri. J aya_.kuf1;.ai' ;;_f_'VaI,i.]_, '.'3_rV.' Ce,--u.ns.ei. for Sri. B. Rajencira
Prasad anCi'Sri_. Bz¥;ssa,Va;1r1.acE':arya, Advs.)

And :

1.. Sn-11.. Rad'.11aVSr1Vﬁvat:}#;'v_ 
0. late S1*'in_ath
 I\'{Ea'}O1-  ..... .. V

'  Sn} P./{a11,c )}S'1'i11ath
'-  S:'iI1a1]:1
" By PA Hﬁldel' Smt. Radha Srinaih

Ielindye', '1'./Iajor
R/ No.53/a. Teertha Apartment
413* l\/Iain, 17"' Cross

"  A' Malieswaram, Bangalore -- 560 003.  Respondents.

  E1171 G. Veda1v'y21sa(tI'1e1I'4 Adv.)



 

This Regular l+'irsi' Appeal is filed under See.96 of CPC
against the judgment. and decree dated 24.1 1.2005 in
O.S.No.-470/2004 on the file of the 25"" Additional City Civil
8: Sessions Judge, Bangalore, deereeing the suit Wt-'or
possession. etc.  V

This Regular First Appeal having been 
reserved for judgment, this day the Court p'rono3u__ne.ed_ their 

following: _- ~

JUDGMENT

This appeal is directed agains't.__ti3_e. judginent,'~ decree in O.S.No.-470/2004 dated'--.i2'4i.y}e1.i0O5 of the 251-" Additional City and..tSess_:ion'ss.udge,"}3anga1ore City. The appellant, was the deien.ed'ai1tv'the-suit and the 1'espondent:s were» ﬂ"Tt(3'-,,I?'lE1l1lElffS'... For the sake of convenience. the parties are 1*eferredA:to their ranking before the trial vCou1*i'. ' 'V tliedeas-e----«of the plaiiitififs that they are the owr.e1*s'-of-_the"~suit schedule premises. The defendant approaehed 151- plain.t,iffio1' lease of the said premises. It y is i'L11't.he1*taeontendeci that the defendant prepared a «t X 'xii document. styled as a "deed ofmo1't.gage" and took signaetuife of the it' plaintiff on the represent.at'ion document is necessary to comply with the "'pV1'ocedL11'e3*--« prescribed under the Rent Control Ad-f"du::.n'g_ point of time. The contents of the1_do'cVurnent_';'were n.QCt;~_ 9' explained to her. The del'e1tdan't--, paid*- of Rs.3O,OOO/W and agreed payﬁal -- per month towards rent. wanted the schedule premisestssued a notice dated of the defendant.

In his thélllvdedieildant admitted his tenancy tn-2.dle1# respect of the schedule premises "on a"'~vs11on1.,h:lyClient" of Rs.2,500/~. The plaintiffs lilleid pet.itio'n"'in I"-IRC ,\lo. l26/ 1999 on the tile of Causes Judge, Bangalore. In the said proceedlilngsl defendant filed an app1ica.tio'n under Section of the Kaijfnataka Rent Act, 1999 {for short 'the 1999 Act'), allowed by the Court: on 28.2.2002 and the were directed to approach the Civil Court. for l 3:

3:

lit.

app1'opriat.e reliefs. 'The 1*evisi.or1 filed by the p1ainti'i7i".s (1h21ilei1gi.r1g the said order in HRRI' N().238/2.90.2'V.'ty'aSr rejected by the I"-iigh Court. by the order Thereaftei', the plaintiffs have filed qiuet9:_t.ioi1_:foif__ possession of the suit schedule p1'ope1't:y._ and b}.i;2t'.'t3erta:iij- other reliefs.

3. The defendant: .h_'I'i1'edi5' 1'iisy.y:Wéfit..t.'e'n._ statement.

contending that 1.-'ii i1.ad'.t.t'ror_oL1g'35l*1t.'v the mortgage deed drafted the defendant to Sign the ailddthe defendant signed the said deed the witnesses. The defendant has paidthe etds.r21n(1eV'€:o Atvhetisi plaintiff in accordance with the Sdld"'"agli("3€I1.}CT1'EL '"n«:--:"'i'i1.irig; of the eviction petition by the .pia'ir1t:.ih'a 128/ 1999 and its dismissal as also the dismissaii I-tI{.iZx?'P..e::No.238/2002 by the High Court are a£tn1it,ted by defezidantf.

4. On the basis 01' the pEeadi11gs of {he p.211"t.ies.r'i11e Court below has franled the following issues:

"I. Whethei' the plaintiffs P§Q\'e t'h'ai~-- defendant is the tenani under 3res_pee'l.V.0i' the suit schedule property __ i h A. IN THE AL'1'ERNA_TwE V _ V _ Whether the c1el"e;1da'1:£tV«.x;iS {he uncler the p1ainti.ffs~...A_in lhehvvhhsuit schedule property '? VA ' 3 Vv

2. Whe2_t'1ief.1j[..£he 1.ern§1:iI'ietti.011:V011'texaency of the defe'r1C1an1.":§i% iri:faee0'rcla-nee wi'1:}1" the requirement. of '.3 '

3. defeelelant is due in a sum of I£';g'.'5?,75'0;'-.--h towafeis Tthe rental arrears at the A Re.2.5xOO;'**~*~pVer month [mm 01.04.2001 to and interest from 15.05.2002 at as pleaded I paras 13[a} and A »._1'3[b].0f the plain: ?

4. ..Whetl1er the p1aini.iI'fs are entitlecl for , ejecitrxlerlt of the defendanf. from the suit e E *1'?

schedule properly or redemp'1.ion of the u moligage'?

5. W}1<3U1er the pIaintif{'s are er1tj1.§Vcd,_:':fo1V*"~V. future mesne profits from the duiie of"'the".su-11 -t._i_.I£* _ V they are put in possession of the scheegiule , "

property ?

6. Whether the defoodan?;'15rt:«§f¢sV'ii1_at, t}1e"su'i'L' is not maintainabie ?" ' '

7. Whet}1t£*:T:.Vj:fhe ;=def'e11oaﬁt :.p:fov.es:' that. the suit is l3;d"1*re_dV .of,resjudicata in view" "of. _V.fi:"-1'l'€":'::Eld€CiLt3iOI7]'S «i*"em:l"e1'ed in HRC No[*:26.,'299'9.j-.;gnd_"+§RRr* - No.23s/2002, as co11tehrV;1e'd_in' p.ai*a}'2 1__ "ofhihe written statemerxi '? V xW}1a!. de'Cre_e___or order ?"

,~"vVhe--t}ier the defendant proves that there is no Cause of action for the suit as contended in " Vpara V137 of the written staitenlem. ? QM.

2. Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder of causes oi" action as contended in para 20 of the written statement 'P "

5. On behalf of the plairuiffs. the is piirgiii-ltgiirﬁéfas ' examined as P.W.1 and documents Ex;P..1 to"

been marked in her evidence. The de'l."end_.Aar;'t. h:as_A"11.ot let'i'iinj7i_A any evidence. However. the docu_n:.ents A}*:XS.£)_.1:v-f.O":..2""h{1i;'€ been marked through PW} wh_i_i__e:'»she.._Vwas' "be1'n.g_}cross~ examined. The court belovxfon.Aa::=pIieciatio'n_«o£ the materials on record has decreed 'thQ""Su~_1't; has held that Ex.Piv:'l thot{gl1'vVst:}v/led'as"a__'d.eed of mortgage', is a lease deed and that a tenant under the 15*' plaintriffltin respect. aoftlhe schedule premises. The court *V.Vbelow'V"l1asE"Ai'L1ri'i1ei* heldwthat the termination of tenancy is was directed to quit and deliver the it vacant.__pos.session of the suit schedule premises to the " jV~-vpllaintiffs {v.it.l'1iI1 three months from the date of the decree. am'

6. Sri. Jayakumar S. Patil, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that the "

are not sure of the nature of relationship betweenV_AltheV1n:'and S the defendant. At one breath, they l_:¢opt'epd'y defendant is a tenant. Alternatively, they 'contend-".l.that lhel*is"< a mortgagee. The court below that is a tenant in respect of premises on a monthly rent of Rs.2,500/--.l .s__i_t.uated Within the limits of the Ban;£ga'lore::A_City it is covered by part--A of regard to Section 27 read act, the Court of Small Causes alone has pass an order of eviction. The Civil Cotir'tjtfrisdiction to direct delivery of lp'ossessfonfVofwthe suit""schedule premises in favour of the plaintiffs. _ pltherwise, by necessary implication, the jnrisdi__ctior1_of Civil Court to entertain a suit for eviction tenant°:.from the premises is governed under the 1999 ousted. Therefore, the court below was not justified in 5 :53 9 directing delivery of possession of the suit schedule premises to the plaintiffs. I *

7. On the other hand, Sri G. Vedavyasachar, Counsel appearing for the respondents would ~ t.he relationship between the 15' plaintiffand'th'e'*d'efef;dant was that of the landlord and the tenantg"e'l'hel'iplla'intifféllhaﬁiif earlier filed an eviction petiti0nv'i_ri'-..l_flRClNo:l261V[l9Q9v..and..3inl the said case, the defendant had__l_ifil-ed an application under Section 43 of the Act to fur_thr;:_r .i.13'4I*Q_r';v,F:.A..€'dl'ppI1gS since there is a jlu1'al relationship of landlord and tenant. The court Vbel:o=2v'(1--.i_sAtnis'sed the eviction petition with liberty to apprloachthe Cévilﬁlourt for appropriate reliefs. The dlsaid unsuccessfully chaklenged by the plaintiffs HRRP No.238/2002. Thereafter, the plailrztiilfs filpedhtldie suit for possession of the suit schedule lp_remises.l?'he court below has held that the defendant is a 'té'cant"~«_under the plaintiffs in respect of the suit schedule \\u--.f?rei:r1ises and it has directed delivery of possession of the

1. 7 10 said premises. There is no bar for the Civil Court to direct delivery of possession of the suit schedule premises. Alternatively, it is argued that if this Court holds triat~w:.the".,A suit for possession is not maintainable, the evictiori petitio'n:l""i V' filed by the plaintiffs in HRC No.l26_/~1~99e9 under Section 43 of the 1999 Act.

8. Having regard to the contentions e,u}rged,l' tl'i1e7 questions that arise for considera'tior1 in thisappeallviare as under:

i)'7,W'net,her"lithe below is justified in holding.eth.at t'he"'dAefendani, is the tenant" under the..plain"tiffs'in' respect of the suit schedule ._}f§i:*€H1_155C5f_? ~ ..... .. .

V = (Ii) the court below has jurisdiction to = .dir'ect'th'e. defendant to deliver vacant possession of the suit. schedule premises in favour the plaint_ii'l"is?

11 [iii] If the answer to point No.[ii} is in the negative, whether the eviction petition filed by the p1ai1i1til'l's in I-{RC No.126/ .1999 can it revived under Section 43 of the Karnataka ~ A' Act, 1999? "

Re. Point No.ji[ : -

9. Before filing the eviction Tpietvitieri No. 126/ 1999 against the de'£"endé.:ja;t';~V..t:he p'1-din-etife vha'{i:'i'ssued a notice. as per EX.P.2 contending. ciefenydarit is a tenant under them in respectt -ofithe ::3uxi'i,e:Vschedule premises on a Inonthly' o1a'Jw."""T't1eV: defendant had sent a reply as admitting his tenancy under the i:)ii*-aVi11'tiffs~__ iAIAj'. respect; of the said premises. iThereet£'t«er,__iA't,11e p1£t£l'}'i;i.,[-fEi"fi1€C1 an eviction petition in HRC 'No. 1999 egei1n_st the defendant under Section 21{1}[h] of V the'Rei1t 196.1 [for short 'the 1961 Act') on the file of Addifiional Small Causes Judge, Bangalore. In the proceesdings. the defendant filed objections denying the ireiotzioinship of landlord and tenant. It was further contendeci 'xv .» 12 that the relationship between them is that of a mortgagor and mortgagee. The Court dismissed the eviction petitionlon 28.8.2002 holding that there is no relationship and tenant. The parties were directed to approa_oli._t.lieA_i'CivilC' Court for declaration of their rights. reikis£_oii_ fi-l'ed:_.Vaga.j.n'st the said order by the plaintiffs in fllilf'-.P:l'No.23t3:/_t2002 also dismissed by this Court on OlT;l)T3.200;3n."*

10. Before filing oftlie aforesaid--~..suit; plaintil'fs issued a notice dated p.e:§.V:l_Eitl.P_.V4 contending that the is tenéirit, under them in respect of the suit schedule "propert5AtCjV'on"a:lA'i"11r3'i'1tl1ly rent" of Rs.2,500/~. It was f'u1jt.'r1er sta"te_d that in order to overcome the prohibition l'Corita'i~ned?..A'ii1 the Reiit."Ciont.rol Act, the document EX.Pl was 'styled as :a'<irnor'tgage deed'. The respondent has sent a reply as 31.12.2003 contending that in the HRC (:ase., the' Court has already held that there is no relationship oF'iasndl't31'd and tenant between them. ,--'''''""".3?

ts 13

11. In the suit, the plaintiffs have contended defendant was the tenant. Alternatively. the ~ sought for redemption of the mortgage, defendant has filed written statenientgienying averrnents. The court below has-..framedi_ issue No§.1'vcaVstt1ng the burden on the plaintiffs to that thedefendant is a tenant. Both the parties lfJX'.'F;..1'..idated 1.4.1995 in order to substantiate their...CC:int.e1itdions"2"Vin of the rival contentions of the 'tlicfdefendant has to be decided thelvother points arising for consideratilonv the other points is dependent"--:1V1l§or1lqtieesﬁjowrlf'3s_:"to""wh.ether the defendant is a 'tenant' or a f'"mortgagee"v. is styled as a 'deed of ;aI:1divi.the llSt"plaintiff is shown as the 'mortgagor' and "as the mortgagee. it further states that V the 'niotrtgageef is interested in advancing a sum of 4Rs.30,0f)O./:'and agrees to pay Rs.60,000/-- to the mortgagor time time on the date and time mutually agreed by said sum of Rs.30,000/-- is refundable to the it M 14 nioriﬁgagee at the ume of Vacating of the premiseV;§.e»._"I'he mortgagee wiil be pui. in possession of the prem_i;'§e§s' ~?j_r1.._:i:i1e date of paymeui. of Rs.30.000/~. In "

agrees to remain in possession of ighe Zprojperfiy _beyon'dr_ti1ee.' agreed 24 rnonths from tlaedeite «of document has to be executed it has been 1'u1't,her stated return the said sum of Rs.30,000 fthe period up mortgage.

Ii t}i_2ii._ihr: naiiie given by the parties to 21 documeni. is not eoe{i_'el_i'1's;.i)}'e».. 'too its rea} legal iiature and effect.' _'l_'i'.1e ndomenr:lVa;i,ur*e does not determine the Character of '~.t.h€ b1.'1i"Vii.1'e**'st:bsiancxe, which musi. be Eooked into _to* "decide ii;<"i':1_ai-{.:1'e. It is aiso necessary to find out the inienﬁion. .o'1'7fi;h.e party executing it, while construing a 'x_doeumen{:.;. The intention has E.o be gathered from the and the terms in the entire document and from the d Sugrrouxiding ciircumsiaiices. How the parties have treated *2 1 '~13 § 15 the deed is also a relevant Eact:o1* while Clt'.l¢'"_".I'l.'1'lE'.E1l:.F}"_£,_f">315 character. When the ClO('.UII'l€I1l is of a composttefmel1aja.et'e:§__' _ disclosing features of both n1ort,ga.ge and lea.s;e;..«_not7 ll necessarily be taken as a mortgage)' will 4l'1a'vel to .l find out predominant intention' t11el"parties document viewed from esse11t':ialllll'Ef;él3G5l bl": of the transaction {See AND OTHERS M AIR 197'Az_§'eA._;'t$5:}(fk:V ll

13. :':--;3'§;: ;a;vLaRNATH Vs. SMT.

has considered the di{'ferenee--between mortgage and the lease. It has been lield "tl1at'j--.n1Ae:_rely" because an amount. is advanced 'Vand..':_tl1e;"..epossession'*----~--i--sV delivered, a t.ra11sac:t:ion. will not *:bleeo"me_ a--v.n'1oVi'tgag;e. The mortgage contemplates the t.ak1'ng of a loaf: and"d'elti'erj.ng possession to secure payment. of the loan, the lllfe1ation.sl1ip being that of a creditor and debtor; On f_'t'he other hand, in a lease for money advanced or deposit ' maide, there is no relationship of debtor and creditor between ht 1"

'E6 the lEl1'lCll0'1'Cl and 1.e11ar1t. in such a t.rar1saCt.io11, the tenant. who desires to take the premises on lease, agrees to n1al«:"e__a deposit. i11s't'.ead of making a monthly paymerlt as an understanding that the landlord will Co11/tinue said advance or deposit so long as T.l'l€"'l,€.I)'8-1I1~'t eo1'lti:V.1te,1es~_i:n possession and he should refund the 'sa1ﬁ'elWhelI1-- vaczates the leased premises. V111 "such "a _t1*ar1sa'eti.r)f1';'V»Vt'r1e property is not given as a seeu1'lty..£or'the._.amou'r1--tadvarlced. While the primary t1'ansaCtj1on-in--a advancing of a loan and seeuri1'1g'--i'he advalleie b'y>_a.n in'1mo\:able property, in a lease agaliisiﬂ _dep7osit_,'lthe primary i1'1ter1tion is to make available the = p1'e'n_1isejs._ the tenant and receive the consideration therel'o.r..bylwajfoi" interest free advance. (2arefullpe--rus'al of the Various clauses in EX.P.l ma'a:es' -it (;;l.ea1'li';hat-.t.he t'ransa(:tioo in question is not a loan t'.1*ar1E;ae'i1lo1'1. 'T'h(:?' property' in question has not been transfer1'edl7asla security for the debt. 'l'herefore. it. does not e..zf'eatelthAe relationship of the mortgagor and mortgagee. The l;

\1;\ 17 1*' plaintiff has handed over the possession of the suit schedule property to the defendant. on payn1ent:.j"*--Qf Rs.30,000/-- towards advance, refundable at vacating of the house. The said advance of Rs.30.O'Q'O/7f'de'es "

not carry any interest". The l'€U1ainiI1g:'S>t"tHI'Of' Rs.6O_,:0O_O/V--'*is payable from time to time for a peried it other words, it amounts to payrnenltt' Rs..2,50O/A; to the £5' plaintiff by the de.fendant;~---- itthe"-defendant iiernains in possession of the prerriisées period from the date of s_epazfate be executed on mutLlajiis/Vagi*eed of EX.P.1 as a whole indicates that '-the'W'Ai§}waii'i~t.idt'E'«had let: out the premises in questionto t.he"'d_eJ'enc.Eant. a monthly rent; of RS-24500/\ and /~ which would be refundable at the tinfie i.di"'«xfaeat:.i_13"g. the said premises. The court below. on t p;rope:i_ e0i1s_idesrat:ion of the materials on record, has rightly eeijleluded vthati the re1at:i0nship between the parties is that of _1Van~di0rd and tenant. Point: N0.(i} is answered V" ____'a'ecei?dingIy.

'xi T8 Re. Point No.[ii} :

'15. I;ez1r'1"1e(.1 C01.11'1seE For ihe appell.2=11'1I,.{t.{r;?IbJ1Eia.;iTi "

subnliis {ha-11 the CM} Cm.:1't haw no Kju»r%s{:1i("t'fi'(mVi.t3--:[")21ée;_'_a decree .f0'1' p()sscss1'm1 of the said }:)1;e111i:;~§E*:5;T ()11"~:. i'I'r,e. Qlhexf hand, leanltécl C(>111'1s9e1 for the Ie$.11Jt);1de'ﬁmVZ17!e;Vi1'j..£iA1'f$;'wQ1,;'i;d argue that the Civii C()LI1'1;hE1S jL1Vl_"'i'é';VVC:Aii:Cf"[l;iI.'f;1_»I_v1 t()..';')"-("is-s'e_eiézlecree for possession when Lille of the landlord :1' the Court V1-inds..va~o}:ije.1'CI'f_:*th§}A"'réigﬁzjﬁshjp is not bonafide. Rely}mg-.,V011;e'fV'h.e __r.1vfftVF1'eVV Court in the case of Qii1")R¥;fr VS. W MUNICIPAL BOARD, V1 974 he submits that the defence or pi.'O1€C{'l:()11 g149:1n_{ed.by t'he"'..1.961 Act. is no longer available ;: i0».i.he'-fem:-mtst» after An-:?'1'1'i"0fcemen1. of the "1999 Act. Piaeing ..e_(v:1"episjon of the Apex Court in MAJATI sU1§1e:.a_;i:Ao_ 'V93? -'P.V.K. KRISHNA RAO (DECEASED) BY

- 989 SC 2187, learned Counsel argues that a .__de.ﬁj2;l (S'1'7.tii1e in the course of eviction petit:.i.0n constitutes a .__ga*oui::d for evicmon provided the denial is not bona fide. In 'ix { 19 this case, the denial of .relationship is not bo11g1K_ﬁde. Therefore. the decree for possession has to be sus_te§é£ii'r1e.c_i;~ is % further argtted that the deiendant has not Vin:t:o.t,he"

witness box. Thus, he has abandoned hi_se_t1seT. '1n's_upp'o_rt of f the case contention, he has retted on the dd-ecisto.n--hAot':the Apex 9 Court in N. JAYARAM RE1)b'I"&z. ANOTHER THE REVENUE DIVISIONALV oerrcﬁjt ACQUISITION OFFICER, KURNOOL - AIR '-1 979' _

16. The Rent Act. 1999 is to providedfotrdv o'tX:1'e11t,eviCtion of tenants in certain areas of -theASt,aite_1o£'.'iflarnataka and for the matters connected t,h'oreVwi.tVhV-.<)r'-._in(:i'dent.al thereto. Sub-section [3]{e} of 2.._of the-.'Aet~sta1.es that the provisions of the Act shat}"nt)'t;._gtptjEyﬂto any premises. deemed rent on the date of the ¢'on1n1e;§'¢:1s:§':ent of the Act or the standard rent of which 'eexeeeds rupees per month in any area referred to in 9' ofﬂthe P-'irst Schedule and 2000 rupees per month in ' any other area. Part~A of the First Schedule consists of the it / 20 areas within the limits of cities constituted unde'ri"'the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976, radius of 3 kms. from the limit of the monthly rent of the premises in que,-vdstion' is -.,:"1"Vhe premises does not come within the purview ofgraub-sec'tio'n V [3}[a) to (h) of Section 2 of thevi.r1Q,99 Ac--i.,_' s:i.iae""::hé" said premises is situated at vB'angalor'e',' is Vicmferedt under Part A of the First Schedule of the dispute on this J. aspect of the matter l7.*'The_Aej?<pres;s'ion--.f'Court""haVs been defined in sub- section oi" Se'ction'V"3.of which is as under:

$1.0): f'C0_"r9' ' . i[i) irii-evspect of the area comprised within the ' the City of Bangalore, the Court _ p Causes;

such other area as the State .. Government, may' in consultation with the High Court, by notification specify, the Court of Civii Judge {Senior Division} 21 having territorial jurisdiction over such area; and [iii] in respect of areas other than thosel"~._S~. referred to in sub-ciauses (i) and (ii],f~tlieur.'__'__i'Sf' Court of Civii Judge {Junior Divi.sion}..: having territoriai jurisdiction area."

The expression "tenant"._has been define(i_V"in...s:ub- * ' section {n} of Section 3 of the AcVt....lvv}1ic'l*i._Vis as undAerH;f?

"(Il} "tenant" means Vany".peifson"'b:y.Awhom or on whose account or_.._behal_f ._th'e'g of any premises; but for spe'cia1..cor1tract wouid pavable: inctudes: _* {ii} iany,persoii_ continuing in possession after S ihel"Le_rniinaition of his tenancyi but does "not includeany person to whom a licence a's;:Vdefined in Section 52 of the Indian 'SV"."_'EaAs.ernents Act, 1882 {Central Act 5 of ' -1882} has been granted."

A. 1.8;";The other relevant provisions are Sections 27, 46, 'and 63. which are as "under:

i "like 22 "27. Protection of tenants against eviction:

(1) N()i,wii.hsi.ariding anylhing to the contained in any other Eaw or contract, 1"1o'2o'1*dyer_ or decree for the 1'eeove1'y of }_).0seessir_)r"1"'Oi'»é1ny'= premises shall be made by the Judge or High Court' in :1'%3_\/()L1V'I"'._C):f'1,116 }an_d1t)1'd against a teilaiii. save as 1-)y1fe*'»Jyided i1i.'_subwseeiief1' 'V (2).

(2) The Court n1ay,"'-0.i'1_a'I's_ app1ie'aVtirin~.made to ii.

in the prescribed mginfier, .;ji.g-}{e-'ari T0}: the recovery of possesésion Q17 t':he°pife_1fnises on one or more Qf"ih£: Qundsffoniy, nameiyz 46x;.Re-vision} Court. may, ai any time C211} for a__11d..veX€tiin1i11e any order passed or V,._§@19ocs.¢edir1g'-Eaken by the Court ofSma11 Causes o15'A"i'heVM'A~.C0L1ri of Civil Judge Senior Divisiorl "reiVer_i*esi' terms (i) and (ii) of clause ((3) of N "-.SeeifioVt;--. for the purpose satisfying itseif as to V"-.io11e__"iegzﬂity or correctness of such order or pioeeeding and may pass such order in V '--1iefe1'e11Ce*'theret0 ii. 'thinks fit. R 'ass 23 (2) The District. Judge niay at any time call for an examine any order passed or proceeding it taken by the Court of Civil Judge Division referred to in item (iii) of clausefc) Section 3 for the purpose oﬂsuch ' proceeding and may pass] stgch ordei' reference thereto as he thinks i;ii..__ (3) The costs itlcideritiai to'V'a1i'p1'oceedin'gsbefore the High Court; or :'tiie Di&str'1cte_:Jttdge sI'ta'E'.i"'be"in the discretion of t1'ie*aIfi'igi'1. District Judge as thecase rr.1.a.}t_be.¥.

50." t"Jur1V'5dietion '-of--- Ci\'r"i1~ii--(;"ot1rts barred in ré.spec"': oVf'ucé1'_tdai :14 'mat.ter5:

(1.) Savteteas ott1'er=.v_ise 'e;{jpi'essIy provided in this Act' no"CivilCo1;_rt""shaEE entertain any suit or "5'proceeding'i'i'i« s_o__i'ai' it relates to the fixation of sta11oiar'd--._i'ent in retattori to any premises to

- " ttiisV'_1.Act applies or to any other matter '' .whic.h' Coritrolier is empowered by or ttrider to decide, arid no injunction in respect at of""a'ny action taken or to be taken by the :hCOT1'L]'OH€'I' under this Act. shat} be granted by any Ctvii Court or other authority.

24 (2) N()t.l1i1"ig in sub--se(:':.ion (1) Sl'IE1.ll be ('f()I1Sl,f.L'.l.('fl(jVV'V'"ll.

as p1'event.ing 21 Civil Court froni ent,ert.a'inii1g any suit or proceeding to decide any qu-est.io:ii..o"i'~._ title to any premises to wliicli this Z-X(rt..V applie--s__Voru l V any question as to the person"«o1"-.persons._who; are entitled to receive tl'1ei_en_t of such pr(:1*:_1ise.sv;--v

63. Finality of A_(_)rders:_....llSl'ave".._Vas otlieijwisle expressly provided Aet.,.il'€5eter_\l*order made by the Court or coIl1i{i"olileiea1--icll.' order passed i11.ap:t:5e.9il ili'e--i'e sg.2iinst under this Ac:t4.s:l1al§5El3e_ final 1-and _:€1é1:'C:T'l],1. iiotloe called in q_ueslt4'ic-n "if-11 é£i:j,x"- s"ui»t';--. app"lic:a'L"ion or execution pi~o__eeedii1g;'*'i. _» E9. I'i'oni i.}1e_aiore:'3al:id provisions, it: is Clear that a 'tei'1a111§:l ll}v1€i'l1,ICl6Sl'21"~{l:éii§QfI:"1 who continues to be in occupation "under sub--sec:ti.on {i} of Section 3 of tlie. the termination of his i,er13.nCy. Section 27 _ provieles protection of tenants against eviction. From ,I1t?I1--C§lZt'STEkI1l,€ clause containeci in the opening part of _le.s1;1l_3l-"se'{:t.ioi1 (1) of Section 27. it is clear that no ciecree for l 25 recovery of any p1'emises shall be made by the Court. Di_st_1'ici. Court or High Court in favour of the landlord tenant. except in accordance with the provisions7contaihed'"2 ' in submsection (2) of Section 27' ofttthe V provides for filing of revision chaileiagieiagthe ord.er' the Courts defined in Section»S.S'{t?.]V(i] (ii) .oi'SV»the«:.__A'et.. "gfhe express bar t.o entertain _a suit t[1_I7l.(I1v:A(.*?1.'.'S<3C'tl'OI1. 50_is iithited to matters relating to fixatio"n~of.fs.i1* toany other matter which the Contro1i'er is ernposve1'edi«'tro toy or "under the Act. Section_6S.. {the ofiiithe orders passed under he Aet'.~_ S

20. 11% CHETTIAR VS. YESODAI 1745, a larger Bench of the Apex seven Hon'b1e Judges has held that the toi3"iooi' T of Property other than agricu1.tu1"a1 land is 'geovered Entry 8 of List III in the Seventh Schedule to the "«S:Consti_.tution. The subject being in the concurrent list, many S State Rent Acts have by necessary irnpiication and many of ii 28 them by starting certain provisions with a non~obstante clause have done away with the law engrafted in Sect.ion»._10.8 oi' the Transfer of Property Act except. in regard to any' M which is not provided for in the State Act or_''' by necessary iniplication. It has beenftfurthéerj. is "In order to get a decree or ordeirior ein~cti'o.;*i'~ against a tenant under any"~«State."Reriii_VCbontroi* Act it is not necessary noticeiinrider Section 106 T.P. a leasein accordance with theHT_:_'ans-lei' [of _Pi1<ofp.erty Act is uni'1ecessAary a'ri;rj--a"'i--nere sdrphisagge because the laridio-:-d cai;n'o.t4'get;'*ei?i'ction of the tenant even after sdcli The tenant coiiiinties to be sio*eyVen_'thcr'eaiter. That being so, making case Lif1d.e1j__t1*v1e Rent Act for eviction of the A itself is suliicient and it is not found the proceeding on. the basis '* cf the 'v'det:e'i'm'i'natio1i of the lease by issue of notice accordance with Section 3.06 of the . __'T.P.'Act. On the question of requirement of such it notice under SE06 'I'.P.Ac1:. the difference in the language of VE1I'i(}L1SK$La't€ Rent. Acts does not if 27 briiléé Eibout any distinction. It i'1o't ("T()'i"]'t;'('.1 t,()vj'""'-- say that 8.106 of the T.P.Act merely ijroxridiiig for ter:rni1"1ai.ion of a lease either by the ' the iessee by giving the requisite not.ic.e . extra protection against e\.7ittti;«i)n: b'I'he_ of this provision is merely to te1'ni'iina7t_e which the overriding Re:-it'Ae'Ls not pe'r'i'n§tv.toV"

be terminated. Even if t.hei'e.ase is de't;e.rrni*iVied':'.!§3y iorfeiture under th"e._TranAsfe1* Property Actt 'ili'l€ tenant continues {So is to say.

there is no, fori'eit.i:re_:'i.n'--th:e iaw. The tenant beeagnies gﬁliable ":be.____Hevicted and i'o1"feit';ire'i.n if_he has incurred t1fie'iii'abii:;ty 'be"'evi.cted"'i3i'ider the State Rent Act, not 4:jti;«+iwise.'*'*V._ " ' In ANOTHER VS. CECILIA PEREi1gA 1937 so 248, the Apex Court xiitiie---«'executabiiit.y of an eviction decree after extension of the 1961 Act. The said case was a tenant in the premises 'cuwhere residing and was also running a teashop. "v.:jSi,ibS'€qtie'..I]t. to the decree for possession, the 1961 Act was it 28 made applicable to the area in question. The Apex Courthhheld that the Rent Control Legislations are beneficial to " 3 and restrictive of the rights of the landlords. The"

were passed to meet the pro'ble1'n'g_o17y sl1.of*tage"""of accommodation in the cities and toW1'3__s.:"It. hasbeen held that the Court must not mVock.ery_o_f and should take a constru.cti.ve to fulflil"the"purposc and for that purpose. if iron: the creases. It has been further .held_ as "It is ,w§é1_1__' 'sett?;ie'd«.j_V-1§'ga1 '---'p:€,ncV:_p1e that Rent Control 'i;¢'g1§1'aao:asl Q'-being ' beneficial to the ten_an--t a 'liberal interpretation.

While ordinarily"substantive rights should not he held to be takken away except by express V_"'~lprot_}f'ision,lo'r.c1ea,r implication in the case of it Renty.Cori-t;rol Act, it being a beneficial legislation which confers immunity to the '' p_l'tenantVlt:against eviction by the landlord though llllprospecltive in form operates to take away the at r'1'ghts vested in the landlord by a decree of a it Court which has become final, unless there is i at 29 ex ress rovision or clear in: lication to P P p __ _ A contrary."

In GOWNDAMMA VS. Mvnvarasne V;

1990 KAR 2639, a Division Benchl-of that by reason of denial of title landlord §§'tt1:1g":up title' in himself by the tenant, theyifelisi.rr0--»_autorriati.::: forfeiture of the tenancy right and the part of the tenant gives a right to the'.:t§:\V"&gtermine the 162186 by iSSU.iI1l{é.'l it required under Sec. 1 1 Mg] of This proposition is in conforinity contained in Sec.l11[g] of the Transfenolf therefore. it applies to a case whereptenarr-eyl is purely governed by the provisions of the Tr'aﬁ"srie"r= of)Propert"yll\ct' and not by the provisions of the Midas e

21. ~.In'the present case, the tenancy in question is not under t.he provisions of the Transfer of Property suit schedule premises is included in Part-A of the § 1%:

First Schedule of the 1999 Act. 'iherefore. dete1'miif:ati'o_n'-of lease in accordance with the provisions of Property Act is unnecessary because the 1ai1_d'io'rd:cannot eviction of the tenant after such (:leterm.iniation.-,'The'"tenantit continues to be so even thereafter. _ .

22. It is true that the exp'res:_bar co.ntatn_ed in Section 50 of the Act for entertaininga' sn1_:1it'VVis_ limited to matters relating to fixation of fair rerit"o.i'f*to ether matter which the Controlier is4.e'rnpov\feVreel' ciecid.e under the Act. Therei"o,re, itsh5o.u1d?€.not"be_' unclerstood that the Civil Court. has jurisc1ici;iori.to=er1tertéii~n<"a suit for eviction of a tenant. from a pren1ii_sesVvc:o'vered"under the provisions of the Act. The non--obstante cl'a.:use contained in the opening part of suhw "'se¢ti'oﬁ oi7.Section 27 makes it clear that the order Or ;ie'c,-'mei.:15r_'Vre:é'o»ire1:3,r of possession of any premises defined in sé'm_5h Act shall be made by the Court. District 'eCourt oft-Iigh Court in favour of the landiord against 3 .f_'ten.2trit.«in accordance with sub~sec11ion [2] of Section 27' of the it 31 Act. 'Court' has been defined in Seciion 3(0) of H16 Acil...,Vlwhieh means the Court of Small Causes in so far a,:§Wi'i*ie.'_'s.,reas_ comprised within the limits of the City of Sub; sections {ii} and (iii) of Section 3(c;} specifielsso»f:he"-ierritoriigfl.l jurisdiction of the Courts in respect of ighe oiherareas the State of Karnataka. The word irileilude the ordinary Civil Courts which aione can have juVrisdictiAor_1v"to recovery of possession off more grounds enumeratedlllhereiril hot lnecessary to take the assisl:a'iiVcelllVof jurisdiction of Civil Couris Having regard to the embargo coiiéaihedfiri'=sLib'¥sectio'r1 ['1] of Section 27 of the the CivlilC'o'u'rt could not have directed delivery of posse-sssio.r_1.lof"t,hVe'--suii schedule premises. decision relied on by the learned Counsel for l'._f§he' plaivritiffs in QUDRAT ULLAHS case (supra), has no '*:C:a;}}:5lic;«ati.on to the facts of this case. In this decision, the C Aﬁgex Court was considering the effeci of repeal of UP, lxll aw"

{Temporary} Rem Control and Eviction Act, 1947. Thr:""%;1id Act was repealed by a subsequent Act. 'Ihe1'eIo1'e_,...1_l'1e 3 Court held that protection under the said Act was: nojflong;{e:= available to a tenant. That is not the Aposition in«t.he9«_p.1fesent. case. Section 27 of the 1999 Act t.ena1its eviction. A tenant of a the provisions of 1999 Act be ifpthe landlord makes out a case under sub~clause the Act.

MAJATI on by the learned Coui.1se'i assist. them in any 1;:m{1§;e V:said4l"decision:l the Apex Court was conside1'ing the the A.P.Building (Lease, Rent and Exfictiion)l'i3ontr0l'--Act, T here is a specific provision in Act for evitftlivon of a tenant when he denies the 'title oi"ihe,_lan"d]t_oi'd or claims a right of permanent tenancy. whenthe _den3i_¢?:l:: and claim was not bona fide. Admittedly, lvthere is ~nojsuch provision in the 1999 Act. h'"i~7he decision in N. JAYARAM RE,DD1's case {supra} is not helpful to {he plaint.iffs. in the said decision. the it 34 Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure confers j:.i1*isdict.ion upon the Civil Courts to Cleterniine all disputes ol""'af£:iV*il nature unless the same is barred by statute eitiheii . or by necessary implication. The barJofpjurisdicltioiiofla Civil. Court is not to be readily infe1'°1fed;feThe'».cXclluslieff;---..'off jurisdiciion would normally*:_ be 't;37;cepi'ioi11':i'.:.._Courts generally construe the provisgglw/?'¢'j'ﬂrf9;4,;,,<ictiy whenljulrisdfiction of a Civil Court. is claimed be'.l_exelud'e_d».2liwhere there is no express exc1usion.,_the and the scheme of t:h_el._.:vpai?tieula'r the intendrhent becomes neclessaiy 7a4nd_'ltiile result of the enquiry may be decisive. An i-mpliedbfarl n-1_a"y,arise when a statute provides a special. remedy _toai.1 aggrieved party like a right of appeal. V' '="l.'herello1'e--;.Aeach case"'I."'e'qt1ires exaniination as to whether the si;at.ute. i'~i.gl1t and remedies and whether the scheme of Act. the procedure provided will be conclusive 'rand tliereigéy excludes the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in jcspeet thereof. There is no absolute right in any one to it 3' 35 demand that the dispute be ad_juclic:at.ed upon only by 2: Civil Court.

25. In s. VANATHAN MUTHURAJA l' @ KRISHNAMURTHY GURUKKAL A.iVDl()i?HE;RS «Q: ('1.,9Q7)V€e":~ SCC 143, the I'10n"ole Supreme Cotir-1dli:<1s l1el.d§tl1"atl' w"he"r~ell*.. there is an express bar of ju1'isdii»(;tion of th_el'€i.¥.é'il Court, an examination of the sei1eiiie¢_ol'i;he st:afw.t'e-.t«o liridvéidequacy or sufficiency of the remedies pijovideiil rjelevaiit but not decisive to susf_vai:ia_V the ji_1risd.i.{:tio:i"ofthefijivil Court. Where there is no" elx::;lusicJn,llll1slie examination of the remediesand theVsCFie1Ii'e.__ol7»t13'e pa1't.iCt1lar Act. to l'i1'1d out the im.endInen.t. lieevtnrnc-:.S:s r1'L".c:es'sai*y and the resuit of the inquiry V.'=I}£1£1y,..BQ2/_El~€{Zl~SlV€. li1"i'.l'1e latter case. it is necessary 1:112:11 the _st"ai_Li;te special rigl1t'. or liability and provides remedy fr>.1l"i:i.i_1e deterrniriation of the right. or liability and l',_further~' vlajgs down that all questions about the said right or l,l_d'1iarll3illit}y shall be determined by the Tribunal so constituted l and the question whether remedies are normally associated lt 37 "'lhe question as to whether the? jtirisdiction C the Civil Court is barred must be ans\vered.._o'n\.---ﬁn. ' the basis of the following principles:

(I) If there is express provision in any special barring the jurisdiction of a Civilj_AC'o:urt ifo_'d.eai\'..4 with matters specified e're.1_ii1-der.,'V_~v_i the jurisdiction of an OI'(I1l'VI1.5,vlI"*y'.. Civil jCoL_n"t-V s'lia'i} stand excluded. V _ {2} It" there is no ezijjress jlviiijthe hut an examination of C the'' w "contained therein leads to "regard to exclusionfj ofgttrisdictiioln « Court. the Court ?§votii'dVth'en ,iridfeirev..whe'l;he'r any adequate and' dldeiiicaciotis 'V 'a.lte1fhative"Vremedy is provided under the li:h4el'--a_n's\2ver is in the ai'firmative, it eaii._sai'eEy'be "eoii,cl"ud'ed that the jurisdiction of the Civii Couri; isbarred. If, however, no such V_""é.dequa:te an'd..._..e.f*'ective alternative remedy is p:'ovi.de.dfthen exclusion of the jurisdiction of the ~ C'1v11"~Cou.fi-,tcannot: be inferred.

C' _ (3) Even,iri cases where the jurisdiction of a Civil kCo1irt barred expressiy or impliedly, the Court .' . __woVu'td nonetheless retain its jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the suit provided the order complained of is a nullity."

it \}~3 38 In UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER VS. V COURT BAR ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS -- (2'.?{o2):A4" H

275. it has been held that there is :1'1o"a'oso12ite_:

one to demand that the disputes be:'«adjt_id'icatedAA.upon"

by a Civil Court. » .

In N.D.M.C. vs. SA:fIsHAVeIt:Ai§*D"a2Ec,tEAs.5:.o;is}? L.R. RAM CHAND --- AIR 2005' held that a bar to file a civil An express bar is where a provision that the jurisdiction"o'f' eg. the bar contained in S€Ct,i0i1. 29301" Act, 1951. An implied bar may arise wiienvv a.statute"j3rovides a special remedy to an V' ~aggr'iei}ec:1A~-A;:3a1:ty 1:353'--t--tght of appeal. _v5;»:6,v At stage, learned Counsel for the respondents "t;he1'e is a difference between the language V . containedviinésection 21 of the 1961 Act and Section 27 io:f"*;11e_ 1999 Act. The word 'any Court' included in E 'tit 39 Section 21(1) ofE':he. 1961 Act, is not found in Section 2vy'7..'{'~1y) of the 1999 Act. in the 1961 Act. there is a total any Court to pass a decree for recovery of possessionr.of the premises except the Courts desigri-ate9d9'].br._ the -:said94.piirpdose".

in the said Act, whereas in the 1.999 there is not bar. He has further argued t;i*taxt~i,ti.he. not 9 contain a provision sirriilar OI:'1lV1'1'&' "1999 Act.

Section 43 of the 1999 of all further proceedings the parties to approach civii jurisdiction for in thedovpinioxi oi' the Court ihere is a reastni troy existence of the document. of lease or the receipt. or acknowiedgement of payment of 19'vrent..'{'it:,1.,,iis fj,:rt11ci-'""'ar§g:i:ed that in GOVINDAMMA"s case i_'_(s'u'pi'a} had stiggested to the State Government to adddhdone '§:{fOU11d to Section 2} of the 1961 Act enabling ',the landlcrd to secure possession of the premises similar to "Secti'on l3{1)(;i) of Rajasthan Rent Act. Thai: is why the word 9 'any Court' has not b en included in Section 27(1) of the 40 1999 Act. Therefore, it should be presumed that Civil Court has jurisdiction to direct delivery of possession o.t?--___the premises covered under the 1999 Act.

27. The expression 'any Court' contained' 21(1) of the 1961 Act has not been included-in' 27(1)!' of the 1999 Act. Section 27 of :'1n__Qi*;:+_'« obstante clause. It states that 1:-otwithstandinegit'anything the contrary contained in any othe'r._1aW_ or contract, fjno order or decree for recovery oi"«pc'sse'ssion of _avnfy~ premises shall be made Courtﬂor High Court in favour of the iandlord agains€;:'t_he--~teriant except in accordance with sub--section 'u[;'».3}_VVof_i;hsg=,said provision. 'the expression 'the "vCouirt3'has been definedv in sub--section (c) of Section 3 of the ce.rnbii1ed:..reading of these provisions make it clear that__Fthe_ included in Section 3[c} alone have *.juri.sdictio:n to pass an order of eviction from the premises under Section 3[i) of the Act. It is obvious that ordinary Civil Courts are not empowered to pass simiiar i 1 1

3. 2}:

purview of the Act, the appe11ant--tenant can be evicted'"on1y in accordance with the procedure prescribed V. settled that if the law states that a particular done in a particular manner, the thing' must"--.be.;dodne_ manner alone.

29. From the diso_.ussion_.m.ade 'above; "it--_i_s clear that the defendant is the tena'nt.ofp_ the ._sc~hedu1e premises governed under the pro=visi'ons- The tenant in occupation ofthue theterrnination of tenancy would tenant. In the matter of determinzltion of Act does not permit the landlord to fsnap his relationship with the tenant merely by " gelving 1_1-otiee to provided in Transfer of Property Act.

'of the Transfer of Property Act is not app,ii'cabie.he.ca}use the tenancy is governed under the 1999 f¥._Act. Seetijon 27{1} read with Section 3(c) of the 1999 Act 'afexdciudes the jurisdiction of the ordinary Civil Courts to pass ' an order of eviction of a tenant from the premises governed 1% R 45 under the 1999 Act. In the eviction petition. the defendant fiied an application under Section 43(2) of the 1 _ stop all further proceedings in the suit and"toi:direet«.the:if parties to approach the competent Ciyii if reiiefs since there is a serious -dispute 'With ;'"egard to the jurai relationship of landlord 'tdliiétflt parties in respect of the of the said application, the the eviction petition on to approach the Civil The said order has been in HRRP No.238/2002 disposedf'of'o--n is why the plaintiffs have filed the aforesaid"st1it..forA'*.rer3oVery of possession of the suit ~ischefdtiﬁe,'-prernises"orinthe alternative for redemption of the hvaigehheid that the defendant is a tenant under the' respect of the suit schedule premises and hf'..,_"ithat thehdecree passed by the Civil Court is without '*jurisdi_ction. Therefore, it is necessary to find out the option L. 3 46 available to the plaintiffs in law to recover possessio'n.Vof_'th_e suit schedule premises.

32. In SMT.RUKMINIBAI KOM OTHERS VS. GOUSUSAB _ Moﬁnasaﬁ OTHERS -- 1988 (1) KLJ 200. 't--lf1:is--.»C0uvrt' was. iérorisitilérifig a C' similar case under 1961' Act. case,"thevjpiaintiff had filed a petition for under the provisions of the tenancy and set up the Court directed the parties constituted suit in a Civil held that the defendant is a tenant. and o'rd_ercd.I~his. evictioli. This Court held that once 'st"=t,he"tlefeindant is declared as the tenant, he is entitled for .prt;tectio:11.¢Vju»nder'_:.Section 21 of the 1961 Act. Therefore, the Civi1_'Court"cia1'inot pass a decree for possession of the suit '*._schedu'ie property and that plaintiff has to file a fresh hlapiilliciation for eviction of the tenant before the competent Court under the 1961 Act.

47'

33. However. the legal position has changed after coming into force of the 1999 Act. Now. the plaintiffs need neotefile a fresh case for eviction of the defendant. Section Act comes to their aid, which is as under: it it "43. Dispute of relationship of ;1andior_d-_aVnd"

tenant: [1] Where in any proc%eeding"._b'eforeV'the Court, a contention is raised denying the.".iAeXisten'ee' V of relationship of landlord-...and tenant as ib.e~twee=n the parties it shall be lawI't1_li'or the" C_ourt= totaccept the document of lease... or.__ where there is no document of 1ease;'=a_ receipt of aclznowledgerhent of payment of rent "'pu.r.pcrte,d} tlo-sje'be'i signed by the landlord a prima facie eifidenc_e._ of .'i'.e1aiionsh_ip and Proceed 1;/"-3lh«'?¥ir tlilellcaélﬁ. " V' "

(2) Where: ' I

(a) the lease pl*ea.d'e--?;iviis' io,r.a17and either party denies l..re1ationship, .a"ndV"n'o._recei§pt or acknowledgment of tpajrme§'jt' o_f"r.e'nt. as referred to in sub--section _ ii] aboxre is i produced. or

(b) in theeopi'nion_lof'the Court there is reason to "suspect the genuine existence of the document , ofdeaseo';--or'=_the" receipt of acknowledgment of payrnent of rent.

_ the, Court shall at once stop all further Vprocee.di"ngs before it and direct the parties to ap'p.r_oac'1'i' a competent Court of civil jurisdiction for declination of their rights."

The above provision lays down that if in the opinion of the Court there is a reason to suspect the genuine existence of the document of lease or receipt of acknowledgment of payment 49 ORDER {i} The appeal succeeds and it is accordingiy allowed. The judgment and decree in O.S.No.4'70/2004 dated on the ﬁle of the 25th Additional City Civil and judge, Bangaiore City, in so far as directing de1iVe.r3f"~of pdo'ssessionx or suit schedule premises is concerned,_isgh=ereby.__setaaside.:' V':

ﬁnding of the court below the«'defendantv--is Said premises under the it d it [ii] HRC No. 12e]:p1~9991«a'ieVpe--eeei:*p'et«en 23.2.2002 on the file of the Additioriai Srnaiid Bangalore, stands restored. The 'Cogentgis:~i:1ir'ect'ed- .fto__p'roceed further with the matter and thereon in accordance with the provisions Rent Act, 1999, from the stage at which further . Vproc--ebe"di'ngs was stopped, which has been referred to in paragraph 33 of this judgment. .Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the _case, "I dir,ect:'ti'i'e parties to bear their own costs. the decree accordingly.

301/ ::

iudge .F:Cs/BMM/-.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court