Karnataka High Court
Smt. Lalithamma @ Lalitha Bai vs Sri.T.R.Ramakrishna on 5 April, 2018
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2018 KAR 1545
Author: G.Narendar
Bench: G.Narendar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 05TH DAY OF APRIL, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.NARENDAR
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.138/2018
BETWEEN:
SMT. LALITHAMMA @ LALITHA BAI,
W/O LATE SRI NARAYANA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
RESIDING AT #18, 4TH 'B' CROSS ROAD,
KATHRIGUPPE, VIVEKANANDANAGAR,
OPP. KEB 3RD STAGE, BANASHANKARI,
BANGALORE - 560085.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. C.S.KUMAR, ADV.)
AND:
SRI. T.R.RAMAKRISHNA,
S/O LATE RAMASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
# 115/1, 5TH CROSS,
TEACHERS COLONY, 2ND STAGE,
BANASHANKARI,
BANGALORE-560070.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.B.VIJAY SHETTY, ADV. FOR C/R)
THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.18 OF THE KARNATAKA
SMALL CAUSES ACT, 1964 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
DECREE DATED 1.3.2018 PASSED IN SC NO.1075/2014 ON
THE FILE OF THE VIII ADDL. SCJ AND XXXIII ACMM,
MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR
EJECTMENT.
THIS CRP COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
2
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. Petitioner is before this Court being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 01.03.2018 passed in S.C.No.1075/2014 whereby, the trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff therein (respondent herein) and directed the defendant-petitioner herein to vacate and handover the vacant possession of the suit schedule property and also directed for payment of arrears of rent amount within three months from the date of the order.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the trial Court has erred in believing the Will and concluding that there is a jural relationship between the parties. He would further contend that the Court below erred in not appreciating the sale agreement-ExD8 in its proper perspective. He would further submit that he has issued a legal notice and has also preferred a suit seeking relief of specific performance for enforcement of the agreement of sale dated 07.08.1995.
3
4. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant was a tenant under his mother one Srinivasamma W/o. T.Ramaswamy in a portion of residential property bearing No.18, 4th 'B' Cross, situated at Kathriguppe, Vivekanandanagar, opposite KEB, 3rd stage, Banashankari, Bengaluru measuring East to West 30 feet and North to South 40 feet along with 4 squares house. That the suit schedule property was purchased by his mother under a registered sale deed dated 21.09.1963, which was produced and marked as Ex.P1 and his mother entered into a lease agreement with the defendant on 01.10.1989 for a period of 11 months and under the said lease agreement, the defendant had paid a sum of Rs.3,000/- as security deposit and monthly rent was fixed at Rs.300/- per month. But after completion of the period under the lease agreement, the tenancy came to be extended and that during the life time of his mother i.e., Srinivasamma bequeathed the schedule property in favour of the plaintiff under the Will dated 10.01.1996 and his mother passed away on 14.03.1996.
4
5. It is stated that pursuant to the demise of his mother, the plaintiff has approached the Revenue Authority and the revenue entries have also been mutated in his favour. That after the demise of his mother, he has intimated the defendant regarding the same and instructed that he be treated as the landlord and that defendant would be continued as a tenant under him. Pursuant to the same, the defendant has been paying agreed rate of rent till July 2013 and thereafter, she is due for rents from August, 2013. The rent currently payable is Rs.3000/- per month.
6. It is further contended that the plaintiff has retired from his service and he desires to reside in the suit schedule property as he finds it suitable to his needs. He got issued a legal notice dated 25.06.2014 through RPAD and the same came to be served upon the defendant calling upon to quit and deliver the vacant possession and also to pay the arrears of rent amounting to Rs.33,000/- and on these grounds, the suit came to be decreed. 5
7. The defendant contested the suit by filing her written statement. It was denied that the plaintiff is the owner but, admittedly his mother was the owner of the suit schedule property. It is further contended that the mother of the plaintiff has executed the Sale Deed-Ex.D8 in favour of the defendant's husband for a sum of Rs.5,15,000/- and out of the same, she has received a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- and has agreed to deliver physical possession under the said agreement. It is further contended that as agreed, a nominal sum of Rs.300/- per month had to be paid to the mother of the plaintiff till the execution of the absolute sale deed. The plaintiff and his sisters are duty-bound to execute the sale deed in favour of the defendant and that the present suit is nothing but an attempt to defraud her of the sum paid by her husband. It is contended that the claim of landlord and tenant relationship is a concocted one.
8. On the above pleadings, the trial Court was pleased to frame the following issues:
6
"1. Whether the Plaintiff proves that he is the owner of the suit schedule property?
2. Whether the Plaintiff proves that he is entitled for an order directing the Defendant to quit, vacate and deliver vacant possession of the suit schedule premises to him?
3. Whether the Plaintiff further proves that he is entitled to recover arrears of rent amounting to Rs.33,000/- from the defendant from August 2013 to June 2014?
4. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for damages of Rs.6,000/- per month?
5. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs sought for?
6. What Order or Decree?"
9. The trial Court after hearing the parties was pleased to answer issue No.1 in the affirmative in the light of Exs.P1, P2, P3, P4, P5 and P6 and held that the plaintiff has demonstrated that he is the lawful owner of the suit schedule property. Thereafter, the trial Court has also concluded that the defendant has continued paying the rents and that the same conclusively demonstrate the subsistence of the jural relationship between the parties. It 7 has also relied upon the pleadings in O.S.No.3596/2014 instituted by the defendant against the plaintiff praying for the relief of permanent injunction wherein she has categorically admitted that she is the tenant and further, the trial Court has also relied upon the deposition of the defendant wherein, she has alleged that the plaintiff had demanded additional advance of Rs.1,00,000/- and she has paid Rs.1,00,000/- towards security deposit.
10. On a conjoint reading of the above facts, the trial Court has come to the conclusion that there is a jural relationship of landlord and tenant subsisting between the parties and hence, it rejected the contention of the defendant that she was not a tenant under the plaintiff.
11. Though, it is vehemently contended that the defendant is in use and occupation of the suit schedule property in her own right under the agreement of sale deed dated 07.08.1995, it is relevant to note that the legal notice pursuant to the same is issued only in the year 2015. No explanation is forthcoming as to why no steps have been initiated by the defendant to enforce the agreement of sale 8 alleged to have been executed by the mother of the plaintiff. That apart, the defendant has also not produced any corroborating material for the passing of consideration under the alleged agreement of sale. The alleged sale agreement appears to be an after thought. It is almost 20 years since the alleged agreement is said to have been executed and it is sought to be acted upon only now.
12. Be that as it may, it is relevant to state that the defendant has not denied the relationship between the erstwhile owner i.e., present plaintiff. In fact, it is contended that the defendant has got instituted the suit for specific performance against the plaintiff and his sisters calling upon them to execute the sale deed pursuant to the agreement of sale.
13. That apart, it is also relevant to note that the defendant has also placed on record the alleged agreement Ex.D4 dated 19.04.2014 stating that the said agreement has been executed by One Srinivsamma, the mother of the plaintiff and that the same has been obtained under the Right to Information Act. The statement of the defendant is 9 recorded in the presence of ASI, Chennamanakere Achukattu Police Station.
14. When the fact remains that the death of Srinivasamma is evident from Ex.P4, the death Certificate issued by the Competent Authority wherein it is stated that the said Srinivasamma passed away on 16.03.1996, it is apparent that the defendant is not acting as bonafide tenant. On the other hand, the defendant is attempting to set up adverse title in her favour with a view to protract the proceedings and thereby squat on the suit schedule property. The petitioner is unable to demonstrate any illegality in the reasoning set out by the trial Court nor perversity in appreciation of evidence. Hence, the petition being devoid of merits does not survive for further consideration.
Accordingly, the petition stands rejected as being devoid of merit.
Sd/-
JUDGE VM CT-HR