Bangalore District Court
Has Induced And Forced Aforesaid Ladies ... vs Through Registered Sale Deed Dated ... on 28 January, 2015
IN THE COURT OF THE IX ADDL. SMALL CAUSES AND
ADDL. MACT., BANGALORE, (SCCH-7)
Dated this, the 28th day of January, 2015.
PRESENT : SMT.INDIRA MAILSWAMY CHETTIYAR,
B.Com.,LL.B. (Spl),
IX Addl. Small Causes Judge & XXXIV ACMM,
Court of Small Causes,
Member, MACT-7, Bangalore.
H.R.C.No.274/2008
Smt.Mahadevamma,
W/o Late Lakshminarasimhaiah,
Aged 54 years,
No.5/98, Puttainapalya, 2nd Main,
9th Block, Jayanagar,
Bangalore-560 069.
Presently residing at:
No.8/A, Yengammaraju Layout,
.... PETITIONER
J.P.Nagar, 5th Phase,
Bangalore-78.
(By Sri. Ningappa. A., Adv.,)
V/s
Smt.Rathnamma,
W/o Karthikeyan @ Kantharaj,
Aged 57 years,
R/at No.28, Annaiyappa
Building, 26th 'B" Main,
Puttainapalya, 9th Block,
Jayanagar, ...RESPONDENT
Bangalore-560 069.
(By Sri. Gopal, Adv.,)
2 H.R.C.NO.274/2008
(SCCH-7)
ORDER
The petitioner has filed the present petition as against the Respondent under Section 27 (2) (o) and Section 35 (2) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 praying to pass on order of finding a fact that, she is denying the ownership of Respondent is in bonafide manner and to direct the Respondent to put back her in possession or to pass any other order or directions as this Hon'ble Court thinks deem fit.
2. The petition schedule property is, All the piece and parcel of the residential A.C.C. Roofed, bearing Door No.5/98, Corporation No.12, measuring about 20 feet from East to West, 18 feet from North to South, situated at Puttainapalya, interior to 2nd Main Road, Jayanagar, 9th Block, Bangalore-69, which is bounded by, EAST : L. Ramesh property, WEST : Naganna's property, NORTH : 5 feet passage, SOUTH : Munirangappa's property.
3. The brief averments of the petitioner's case are as follows;
a) She along with her family members, was inducted at the residential premises bearing No.5/98, situated at 3 H.R.C.NO.274/2008 (SCCH-7) Puttainapalya, 9th Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore-69, consisting of Small Hall, Kitchen, Bathroom and Toilet, with no electricity and no water, as a tenant in the year 1989, which is the petition scheudle property and vide a rental agreement, the Respondent on 16.12.1992, had received an additional advance of Rupees 4,000/- to that and a total advance rent deposit of Rupees 10,000/- was deposited and a monthly rent of Rupees 425/- per month.
b) The Respondent had claimed the title over the schedule property vide a registered sale-deed bearing register No.2526/1977-78, before the Sub-Registrar, where the vendor is Sri.Muniswamapa S/o Hanumappa, aged about 55 years, who was then resident of Doddakammanahalli Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk and the Vendee is Smt.Rathnamma W/o Kantharaj, aged about 30 years, resident of Puttainapalya, Jayanagar 9th Block, Bangalore, property dimension of about 23' X 21' vacant site and the schedule property as mentioned at the sale deed as Corporation No.12, measuring North to South 21 feet and East to West 23 feet, situated at Puttainapalya, Jayanagar, 9th Block.
c) The Bangalore City Corporation, has made issued a notice as required under Rule 143 of the Karnataka Muncipal Corporation Act, 1976, through the Commissioner of Revenue Department, Jayanagar Zone, Bangalore City Corporation, issued on dated 20.05.1987 bearing MTR No.23, 81 88 JN 60(a) KTR 52/85-86 in respect of property Khata No.54, application dated 14.08.85 that, in respect of No.13/54, situated at 2 nd Main Road, Puttainapalya, Jayanagar 9 th Block, Bangalore, the 4 H.R.C.NO.274/2008 (SCCH-7) yearly tax to be Rupees 700/- and other cess to a total of Rupees 962.85.
d) The Bangalore City Corporation, record as entered on dated 01.04.1996 in regard to index over residential and vacant sites book in regard to bid No.13 and new No.54, measuring about 23' X 21' consisting of 2 square feet, standing in the name of 'Smt.Rathnamma' .
e) The Respondent's house property Number is 13/54, situated at 2nd Main Road, Puttainapalya, Jayanagar, 9 th Block, Bangalore.
f) She had applied for particulars regarding property No.12, property No.13/54, property No.54, property No.5/98, before the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike under the Right to Information Act on 22.01.2007. The Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, through its Revenue Department of Madivala, Sub -Division, Bangalore had replied on 07.02.2007 that, the property No.12, situated at Puttainapalya, 9 th Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore stands in the name of Doddamuniswamappa, property No.54 or same locality stands in the name of Sanjeevarama', property No.5/98 is not found at the entries made at Corporation register, property No.13/54 of the same locality stands in the name of Smt.Rathnamma, i.e., the Respondent.
g) She had applied for khata certificate before the BBMP, Bangalore over the property bearing No.12 of Puttainapalya said to be the actual property standing in the 5 H.R.C.NO.274/2008 (SCCH-7) name of one 'Doddamuniswamappa', where she was inducted as a tenant by the Respondent.
h) The actual owner of land-lord of the property bearing No.12, situated at Puttainapalya, 9 th Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore, the Legal representative of the said Doddamuniswamappa has instituted a suit for Declaration and possession, over the schedule property, where the Respondent is Defendant No.1 and herself is Defendant No.2, bearing FR O.S.No.8784/07 on 02.11.2007 before the Prl. City Civil & Sessions Judge at Bangalore, duly registered as P.Misc.8/2008.
i) The Respondent through her special Power of Attorney Holder K.Usha had filed a petition for eviction against her bearing HRC No.586/2002, by concocting and fabricating a false schedule is not practically existing before the revenue authority and none of the title deeds corroborate made out of own version as follows:
j) All the piece and parcel of the residential house, premise bearing No.5/95, Old Corporation No.12, House No.13/54, Khata No.54, Corporation division No..60 (Old No.35), situated at Puttainapalya, 2 nd Main, 9th Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore-560 069, measuring East to West 23 feet and North to South 21 feet consisting of one room, one hall, kitchen, bathroom, toilet and having asbestos sheet roofing, electricity, sanitary facilities with cement flooring, and the property is bounded on East by Venkatappa's property, now the property belonging to Respondent's son L.Ramesh, West by Venkatesh @ Naganna's property and now private property, North by Passage (Road), thereafter vacant site and South by Property 6 H.R.C.NO.274/2008 (SCCH-7) of Munirangappa @ Munilinganna's property. The SPA Holder was collecting rent up to date before the Court itself, unfortunately, the petition as allowed in favour of Respondent, as required under Section 27(2) (a), 27(2) (j) (l) and (r) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, directing her to vacate and hand over vacant possession of the property within one month and other recitals.
k) A case bearing HRC No.1484/1998, before Small Causes Judge at Bangalore one Smt.Shashi had filed against V.Karthikeyan the legally wed husband of the Respondent, where the husband of the Respondent has deposed before the Court in his evidence that, he owns a house in the name of his wife is false and the sale deed said to be in the name of Rathnamma and the said Rathnamma is wife of Kantharaj and not his wife, whereas, the cause title of the Case No.HRC 586/2002, both the names are mentioned.
l) The Power of Attorney Holder of the Respondent had instituted the case No.HRC.586/2002, had also deposed in place of the Respondent, contradicting the principles of law as laid down by the Supreme Court of India, reported at ILR 2005,729, holding at, at Power of Attorney Holder shall be a witness only. In case, the principal could not be present before a Court Commissioner has to be appointed for the said purpose and the High Court of Karnataka, has held in a case reported at 2004(3) Kar.L.J.455, where the request of Power of Attorney Holder was rejected by the trial Court and the same was upheld by the High Court.7 H.R.C.NO.274/2008
(SCCH-7)
m) The Respondent through her power of attorney holder had filed an execution petition against her bearing Ex.Case No.519/2008 and has recovered the possession on 25.02.2008, concocting the cause title at the Judgment Debtors address column.
n) The Respondent after misguiding and misleading the Court of law, by the said act as put up at the above said facts, the Respondent had vacated her under due process of law, over the property belonging to some other third person, has not occupied the house as to this day. The copy of the photograph, negative and receipt of the vacated schedule property with no any bonafide occupier as relief sought by the Respondent in HRC 586/02, on dated 12.06.2008.
o) The Respondent inspite of not the actual and true owner of the schedule property was successful in legally vacating her from the schedule property on 25.02.2008 and has not occupied the schedule premises as to this day, aggrieved by the same, the petition is moved for ample interference of this Hon'ble Court.
p) She has not dispatched any written legal notice as it is not mandatory required, in view of the invocation of the relevant provisions of the K.R. Act, 1999. Hence, pleading cause of action, the Petitioner has filed this petitioner.
4. In response to the notice, the Respondent has appeared before this Court through her Learned Counsel. But, initially, inspite of giving sufficient opportunities, the Respondent had not filed objections to the main petition. Later, 8 H.R.C.NO.274/2008 (SCCH-7) as per the Order dated 27.02.2009 passed on I.A.No.I, the objection filed by the Respondent to the main petition is taken on file.
5. The Respondent inter-alia denying the entire case of the Petitioner, has further contended as follows;
a) At the outset, the petition filed by the Petitioner under Section 27(2) (o) and Section 35(2) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 is not maintainable either in law or on facts of the case and the petition lacks bonafides and hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed in limini with exemplary costs.
b) The Petitioner has suppressed all material facts and she has filed a frivolous case against the Respondent to harass her with ulterior motives.
c) She is represented by her power of attorney holder one Kumari K.Usha, daughter of the Respondent Smt.Rathnamma and Sri Karthikeyan @ Kantharaj. The same power of attorney holder Kumari K.Usha was also appeared and prosecuted the eviction petition filed against Petitioner in H.R.C.No.586 of 2002 and in appellate Court also.
d) She was filed a H.R.C. case vide H.R.C.No.586 of 2002 against the Petitioner under Section 27(A), (J) (L) and (R) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, requiring the petition schedule premises for herself and for her family members occupation before the Hon'ble Additional Small Causes Judge, Bangalore City (earlier it was before SCCH No.13). Subsequently, it was transferred to Hon'ble Principle Small 9 H.R.C.NO.274/2008 (SCCH-7) Causes Judge, SCCH No.1 had came to be disposed off the said HRC No.586 of 2002 on dated 22.12.2007 by allowing the petition filed by her under Section 27(2) (J) (L) and (R) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999.
e) During the course of evidence on main petition in the HRC No.586 of 2002, she has produced as much as 77 documents in support of her case and the same was exhibited as Exhibits No.Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.77 through her Special Power of Attorney Holder Kumari K.Usha, the said attorney holder K.Usha is none other daughter of the Respondent. The same power of attorney K.Usha is appearing and prosecuting in the present case also, i.e., HRC No.274 of 2008).
f) The eviction order and decree passed in the said HRC No.586 of 2002 and the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence of both the parties in the said HRC No.586 of 2002 are all may kindly be read as part and parcel of this statement of objections to avoid repetition of facts and for brevity.
g) The Petitioner had preferred HRRP under Section 46(1) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 against the order dated 22.12.2007 passed in HRC No.586 of 2002 against her in HRRP No.7 of 2008 (eviction) before Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore, the said HRRP No.7 of 2008 came to be dismissed by confirming the order of the Court below on dated 18.01.2008.
h) Subsequent to the said order passed in HRRP No.07 of 2008, she had filed an execution petition in Execution 10 H.R.C.NO.274/2008 (SCCH-7) NO.519 of 2008 for executing the order and decree passed in HRC NO.586 of 2002 against the Petitioner, before the Hon'ble Chief Judge of Small Causes, at Bangalore. As this Petitioner Smt.Mahadevamma had scant respect towards order of the Hon'ble and also the order of the High Court of Karnataka, as such, she has not objected the orders of this Court and Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. Hence, the said Hon'ble Chief Small Causes Judge, Bangalore has passed an order to break open the lock of the premises with Police protection and the same had taken the possession of her of the said premises on dated 12.03.2008 by executing the warrant in said manner. Even after obtaining the possession of the said petition schedule premises, the Petitioner has obstructed to close the said Ex.No.519 of 2008 for baseless grounds. The said Execution is still not closed in view of obstructions caused by the Petitioner.
i) The Petitioner also preferred frivolous and baseless RSA, W.P and W.A. against the order and decree passed in HRC No.586 of 2002 with sole intention to harass and give mental torture of her to maximum extent and cause also multiplicity of proceedings and nothing else. She has not received any summons or notices of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka.
j) Under the said circumstances and material placed in HRC No.586 of 2002 by her, the jural relationship of landlord and tenant and she had already proved all reasonable doubts that, she is the absolute owner of the property in question. As such, in earlier proceedings in HRC No.586 of 2002, her rights was only to an extent of tenancy right, as such, she is stopped from questioning the title of her landlord/owner in present petition as it is barred by Res-judicata and has already held the 11 H.R.C.NO.274/2008 (SCCH-7) said facts by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in its order in HRRP NO.07 of 2008, as such, the Petitioner is misleading and misrepresenting this honorable Court and also misleading by misquoting the Provision/Section 27 (2) (o) of K.R.ACT, 1999, The Section 27 (1) is very clear that,, under what heads and grounds that, the landlord can seek and recover the possession of any premises against a tenant and that, the provision is very clear that, the provision of law is exclusively available to the landlord and not for the tenant. As such, it is very pertinent to submit that, in Chapter VI of K.R. Act., 1999, it regulates the eviction of the tenants and Section 27(1) says that, PROTECTION OF TENANTS AGAINST EVICTION and thus, the said section reads as under :- "(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract, no order or decree for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made by the Court, District Judge or High Court in favour of the landlord against a tenant, save as provided in Sub-Section 2". :- AND THE SAID SUB-SECTION (2) READ AS UNDER :- (2) "The Court may, on an application made to it in the prescribed manner, make an order for the recovery of possession of the premises on one or more of the following grounds only, (a) (b)
(c) (d ) etc., ... And Sub-Section (o) of Section 27 reads as under :-
"The tenant in his reply having denied the ownership of landlord has failed to prove it or that, such denial was not made in a bonafides manner". Thus it is very clear that, the aforesaid provision of law is exclusively available for the benefit of landlords/owners of any property, as defined under the said K.R. Act, 1999. The petitioner as per the evidence and 12 H.R.C.NO.274/2008 (SCCH-7) pleadings of her, she was a tenant as aforesaid H.R.C.No.586 of 2002, under alleged aforesaid provision of law, she cannot seek any relief/s much less the alleged relieves. As such, the provision quoted by this evicted tenant/petitioner in the present case, is against to the provision of Section 27 (1) of K.R. Act, 1999 and thus, said provision of Section 27 (2) (o) is not at all applicable and not maintainable in the afore said facts and circumstances of the said HRC No.586 of 2002, as she was only a evicted tenant under this respondent. As such, in the present facts and circumstances of the case is not applicable to the alleged provision of law i.e., Section 27 (2) (o) and that, without any rights or basis, the petitioner has filed the present frivolous and baseless case against her in order harass and to cause mental torture and agony with a malafide intention and thus, she has filed present petition purposefully to suit her convenient in order to extract money from her and cause monetarily loss. Thus the petitioner has misquoted the provisions of law with intention to mislead this Court and other Courts of law. The petitioner, by creating and fabricating some documents, she has already initiated another case for declaration of premises in question in P. Misc. No.08 of 2008 (i.e., in F.R. No.8784/2007 for declaration and possession) in collusion with one said Smt. Lakshmamma and Smt. Hanumakka, wherein the said suit, she is the defendant No.1 and the said suit is pending on the file of City Civil Judge, Bangalore City, on the file City Civil Court Hall No.11. The petitioner has induced and forced aforesaid ladies and with hand in glove has created and fabricated some documents and foisted the present case against her without any valid ground/s and thus, the petitioner is the main abettor in creating, 13 H.R.C.NO.274/2008 (SCCH-7) concocting and forging some documents and has initiated said P.Misc.08 of 2008. She reserves her right to sue against this petitioner and also afore said Smt. Lakshmamma and Smt. Hanumakka at an appropriate time with competent Courts of law for both criminal and civil for her redressed. The said P.Misc. was filed subsequently to passing of the order in HRC No.586 of 2002, as such, the said P.Misc/declaration suit is only created and invented to suit and it is nothing to do with the present petition filed by the petitioner. That apart, by misleading and misrepresenting the facts, the petitioner is in habit of taking different defences under different stages of the cases by changing the Advocates after Advocates. Hence, the present petition lacks bonafides and no legs to stand and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost.
k) The averments made in Para Nos.2 to 15 by the Petitioner in her present petition are all already dealt by this Honorable Court and Honorable High Court of Karnataka and that apart, she has already answered and explained in length in her eviction petition in HRC No.586 of 2002 with her pleadings, documentary and her oral evidence, as such, these paragraphs does not requires any explanations and as such, the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence produced by her in the said HRC No.586 of 2002 are self-explanatory and that apart, the said Paras No.2 to 15 are already dealt by this Honorable Court and Honorable High Court of Karnataka in its afore said proceeding, as such, the alleged aforesaid Para's averments amounts to res-judicata, as such, the petitioner is estopped from questioning the title of her landlord/owner.
Admittedly, the petitioner was put in possession of premises in 14 H.R.C.NO.274/2008 (SCCH-7) question by her. She reiterates that, the entire facts of the present case of the petitioner is based on the facts and circumstances of HRC No.586 of 2002, as such, the pleading, oral evidence and documentary evidence (and order passed on Interim Applications), are all produced by her are all important. That apart, the petitioner before the trail Court i.e., before this Honorable Court, at the time of trail in the said HRC No.586 of 2002, never whispered the facts that, the aforesaid ladies were/are the owner of the premises in question. The petition of the petitioner is desperate one and motivated with vengeance, as such, looking from any angle, the present petition will not stand and survives.
l) With regard to Section 35 (2) of the K.R. Act :-
"Recovery of Possession for occupation and Re-Entry- it is submitted that, Section 35 (2) of K.R. Act, 1999 must be read be conjointly with Section 35 (1) and it cannot be read and understood separately and independently, Sub-section 35 (2) is based on Sub-section 35 (1). As such, the petitioner once again misread and misunderstood the aforesaid provision of law and trying to confuse this Honorable Court and other Courts of law. Admittedly, she has taken possession of the eviction petition schedule premises in question on 12.03.2008. Admittedly, the petitioner has caused substantial damages to the said premises in question by doing :- (a) caused damages to the roofing by breaking the asbestoses sheets by placing wooden plants, (b) all walls are peeled off and cracked, cement plastering of the walls have come out, (c) cement flooring are damaged by storing wooden planks, iron doors, windows and other articles, (d) by burning firewood, the inside walls are 15 H.R.C.NO.274/2008 (SCCH-7) turned blackish and thereby diminished the value of the walls, flooring, roofing, (e) toilet walls and doors are considerable damaged, (f) by writing slogans (i.e., notice to public by painting on the front wall of the door, due to this written slogans, in the locality, her reputation and dignity is defamed and thereby, value of the premises in question has diminished. The relevant photographs are already produced and exhibited in the said HRC.No.586 of 2002. As such, admittedly the said HRC No.586 of 2002 was also allowed under Section 27 (2) (J) of the K.R. Act, 1999 also.
m) She has taken possession of the premises in question on 12.03.2008. Subsequent to obtaining possession of the premises, after making necessary arrangements of money, men and materials and then, made arrangements to start repairing of the evicted petition schedule premises i.e., she had undertook necessary and required repairs for the said premises, as the petitioner with malafide intention had caused substantial damages to the entire evicted petition schedule premises in question. She had removed damaged asbestoses sheets from the roof and raised the height (little) of the walls and replaced new ones in place of damaged one. The entire premises of inner and outer walls had caused considerable cracks and plastering of the walls were peeled off and the walls were very ugly and as such, old plastering of the walls were removed and those walls were fully and newly plastered with cement and doors and windows were also broken and the petitioner has caused the said damages and same is removed and placed new ones with carpentry works and new flooring of the premises were carried out and sanitary connection was also 16 H.R.C.NO.274/2008 (SCCH-7) caused damaged by the petitioner and hence, the new sanitary lines were also made good by placing sanctuary pipes and she carried out necessary paintings and distempering works were also carried out and new water supply connection were also obtained from the concerned authorities and other required and necessary repairs were also carried out for the said premises by her and her family members and the petitioner with malafide intention, caused substantial damages to the premises in question. Without carrying out the afore said repairs, she and her family members were unable to live in the eviction petition schedule premises in question, as the premises was not in good condition i.e., habitable in condition.
Subsequently, the completion of the said repairs, she and her family members are living in the premises in question and it is not let out to any other person/s. Without making necessary and required repairs to the premises, the land lord/owner and her family members cannot and unable to live in the eviction petition schedule premises. As such, during the said period, the premises was under necessary repairs. That, apart, from the date of obtaining possession of the premises in question, every day in the nights, her son was staying by leaving household things and locked the premises i.e., the evicted petition schedule premises and her daughter was supervising premises and it is under her control and the repairs works were carried out by her along with her and either of the family members were visiting daily, as they stored repairing materials inside the premises and it was some time locked i.e., the evicted premises in question and thus, it is very clear from the above that, one of her family members was staying in the said premises and thus, she was/is in possession and occupation 17 H.R.C.NO.274/2008 (SCCH-7) and enjoyment of the same. That apart, due to non-payment of electricity charges by the petitioner, the BESCOM authorities have disconnected the electricity facilities from the premises. Even today, she is making all sincere efforts to obtain reconnection of the said electricity for the evicted petition schedule premises. All the aforesaid facts are within the knowledge of petitioner. As such, the evicted tenant/petitioner cannot compel the landlord/owner and her family members i.e., the respondent to occupy premises in question without carrying out necessary and required repairs. That, if during repairs, the landlord does not occupy, it does not amount to ceasing to occupy, so as to attract Section 35 (2) and also does not leads to that, the landlord does not bonafides require the premises for her and her family members use and occupation, which purpose, she had secured the possession of the evicted petition schedule premises. "Occupation", does not mean physical possession". If the possession of premises under repairs, such of occupation would be full and complete possession in the eye of law. The Petitioner is well aware that, she was carrying out the repairs for the premises, with malafide intention, she has suppressed the above fact of repairs and with malafide intention, she has initiated the present petition against her, by abusing the process of the Court, even though the petitioner-Smt. Mahadevamma and her family members is already acquired several properties and they are in possession and enjoyment of properties in and around Bangalore city. The aforesaid eviction case HRC No.586 of 2002 was also allowed by this Honorable Court under Section 27 (2) of K.R.Act.1999 too. As such, the premises in question are not at all required by the petitioner and she is having 18 H.R.C.NO.274/2008 (SCCH-7) alternate accommodation of her own and she is living in a posh locality luxuriously and comfortably with her children and above said fact are upheld by this Honorable Court and Appellate Court too and as such, the present petition filed by the petitioner is abusing the process of the Court and as a counter blast for the pending suit vide O.S.No.520 of 1994, as she had initiated the said original suit against the petitioner for the relief of demolition of encroached portions and for other relief's against the petitioner and she also filed above said P.Misc. to counter blast and that being a State Government Employee working in B.B.M.P. as Class IV employee and her intention is to extract money and money only illegally from the poor and aged her and harass as much as possible and wants to ruin her life and her family members, by filing cases after cases nothing else. Hence, the petitioner has not fulfilled the ingredients of Section 35 (2) of K.R. Act, 1999 and she cannot entitle any relief/s either possession of Respondent-entry or for any compensation, under said provision of law and thus, the petitioner's claims and conduct is malafide and amounts to abusing the process of the Court.
n) There is no cause of action has arosed to file the present Petitioner and the alleged cause of action and date are all denied as false and the petitioner not pleaded what was the cause of action arose the alleged date and that, no cause of action arose to file the present petition and that, even on 13.06.2008 no cause of action arose to file the present petition. The cause of action is created and concocted to suit her purposes and convenient. The Provision of Section 35 (2) is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case and as it 19 H.R.C.NO.274/2008 (SCCH-7) is barred by Section 35 (1) of the K.R.ACT, 1999 and also barred by the limitation as provided under Sub- section 2 of Section 35 K.R. Act, 1999, Read with Under Rule 22 of Karnataka Rent Control Rules, 2001 and hence, this Honorable Court has no jurisdiction to try and to pass the order for possession of Re-entry or for any compensation of the same and this Court has No Civil Court jurisdiction to find out the facts and to declare, who is the owner of the premise in question, as such, the relief/s sought by the petitioner are not entitled to, much less the alleged relives.
o) It is settled principles of law that, if eviction is ordered on the grounds other than or in addition to what are enumerated in sub-section (1) of Section 35 of K.R. Act, 1999, section 35 (2) of the said act, will not apply to the present facts and circumstances of case.
p) To substantiate the aforesaid Para No.15, then they have to look into the additional grounds are urged by her i.e., in her eviction petition filed by her against the petitioner-Smt. Mahadevamma in HRC No.586 of 2002, were Under Section 27 (A) (i.e., for arrears of rents), 27 (2) (J) (i.e., the tenant for having acquired the vacant possession and built buildings), 27(2) (L) (i.e., the tenant caused substantial damages for the premises), and 27 (2) (R) (i.e.,, premises required for landlord and her family member for use occupation), and this Hon'ble Principal Small Causes Judge, Bangalore, (SCCH No.1), has came to be allowed eviction petition under afore said all the provisions of law, i.e., under section 27 (2) (A), (J), (L) and 27 (2) (R) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, on 22.12.2007. Subsequently the petitioner had preferred an H.R.R.P.No.07 of 20 H.R.C.NO.274/2008 (SCCH-7) 2008 before the Honorable High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore, and the said Honorable Appellate Court has confirmed the order passed by the Court below, by its order dated 18.01.2008. Thus, it very clear from the above that, to get the benefit of Section 35 (2) by the evicted tenant, the evicted tenant firstly she has to fulfill the conditions mentioned in Section 35 (1) i.e., neither this Honorable Court nor Honorable Appellate Court have passed any order and decree in respect of Section 27 (2) (f) or Under Section 28, 29, 30, 31 or 37 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999. Therefore, under the above said facts and circumstances of the case, the evicted tenant cannot entitle to invoke Section 35 (2) of the said Act. That apart, neither she sought any order and decree barely or solely or individually i.e., on lonely section i.e., she was not sought order and decree individually on the basis of Section 27 (2) (r) alone nor this Honorable Court has not passed any order and decree alone Under Section 27 (2) (r) of the said Act alone. From the said eviction order, it is very clear that, she had sought the eviction order under Section 27 (2) (r) and other additional grounds too (i.e., the eviction is ordered on the grounds other then or in addition to what are enumerated in the Sub-section (1) of Section 35 of the said Act.) i.e., under Sections 27 (2) (a)
(j) Il) and (r) of the said Act too. Apart from that, the petitioner was a chronic defaulter of rents, as such, this Honorable Court and Honorable Appellate Court have passed an order and decree against the petitioner under section 27 (2) (a) also. Hence, Section 35 (2) of the said Act, will not apply to the facts and circumstances of the case.
21 H.R.C.NO.274/2008(SCCH-7)
q) In the present petition, with a malafide intention and to suit her purposes and convenient, the petitioner has not shown the correct Number/s as shown and stated in the eviction petition schedule premises of her in HRC No.586 of 2002. The petitioner has also not shown the correct measurement of the premises as shown in the said eviction petition. She has also not shown the premises having amenities like electricity facilities as shown and state in the said eviction petition and she has also not stated the boundaries on four sides as shown in the said eviction petition schedule. Admittedly, the petitioner was evicted in the H.R.C No.586 of 2002 proceedings. The said order is also confirmed by the Honorable Appellate Court also, as such, she cannot change already existed facts at her whims and fancy and seek any illegal orders by suppressing the material facts, for which, she not entitled to. Even the office of this Honorable Court ought to have scrutinized and verified the order and decree passed in HRC No.586 of 2002 and ought to have raised the required reasonable objections to that, effect at the time of presenting / filing of the present petition by the petitioner or the office of this Honorable Court ought to have returned the petition on the aforesaid reasons. In the interest of litigant's public, this type of practices and procedure cannot be entertained by the office of this Honorable Court and it should be curtailed at the threshold. As such, she respectfully and humbly prays this Honorable Court that, a due instruction or directions may be given to both the petitioner and office of this Honorable Court to scrutinize, verify and rectify the same. So, it can avoid precious time of this Honorable Court and other Court of law, and it may avoid multiplicity of proceedings.
22 H.R.C.NO.274/2008(SCCH-7)
r) She Smt. Rathnamma is the sole absolute owner of the entire property bearing No.5/98, (Old Corporation No.12) New No.13/54, (i.e., Present Katha No.54) Corporation Division No.60 (old Division No.35), situated at Puttayanapalya, 2 nd main 9th block, Jayanagar, Bangalore-69, measuring East to West 23 feet and North to south 21 feet, the same is acquired by her Respondent through registered sale deed dated 13.01.1978. The original title deeds and revenue records are all produced and marked in her eviction petition No.586 of 2002 and those exhibited documents may kindly be read as part and parcel of this objections and that, the eviction schedule premises is consisting of one room, one hall, kitchen, bath room, toilet and having asbestoses sheet roofing, electricity, sanitary facilities with cement flooring and the property is bounded on :-
East by: Venkatappa's Property now the property belonging to the Respondent's Son L.Ramesh; West by: Venkatesh @ Naganna's property and now private property; North by:
passage (Road) thereafter vacant site; South by: Property of Munirangappa @ Munilinganna's property. (Herein in after called as Eviction Petition schedule Premises and the said eviction petition schedule premises is the present petition schedule (as this petitioner intentionally shown the false schedule as such, the present petition may kindly be read as shown and stated in the eviction petition HRC No.586 of 2002 and not as a petitioner's petition schedule premises). Since from the date of its purchase, she and her family members are in possession and enjoyment of the evicted petition schedule premises. In the cause title, the addresses of the petitioner also shown wrongly, as because the petitioner evicted and taken 23 H.R.C.NO.274/2008 (SCCH-7) possession on 13.02.2008 itself. Even then, this petitioner with a malafide intention and to suit her purposes and convenient, the address shown that, of or as she is residing in the addresses of the eviction petition schedule premises. The Petitioner has not approached this Hon'ble Court with clean hands.
s) Even her addresses is shown incorrectly, as because the petitioner evicted by her respondent and had taken possession of evicted petition schedule premises on 13.02.2008. As such, the petitioner ought to have shown the cause title addresses as old address and the petitioner ought to have shown evicted petition premises addresses as new address. But, the petitioner with malafide intention to suit her purposes and convenient, had shown old addresses in the cause title and she purposefully not shown evicted petition premises addresses as new address. The present petition, P.Misc. No.08 of 2008 and HRRP No.07 of 2008, have been filed by the same Advocate on record.
t) Relying on the forged and created documents, the petitioner entails herself for criminal's prosecution as the same amounts to perjury.
u) She reserves her right to produce any other additional document/s are necessary in case of need (as she applied for certified copies before competent authorities is concerned), to dispose of the case in accordance with law at the time of adducing her evidence.
24 H.R.C.NO.274/2008(SCCH-7)
v) She has made out a prima-facie case for dismissal of petition of the petitioner and balance of convenience lies on her favour.
w) If this petition is dismissed, no hardship whatsoever in nature will be caused to the petitioner as herself and her family members are living her own buildings, on the other hand, she will be put to great injustice, loss and injury.
x) The petition filed is not in consonance with the law laid down in Rule 22 of the K.R.C. Rules, 2001 and Section 35 (1) & (2) of the Karnataka Rent Act. 1999. Further, no notice is caused to her before filing this petition and it is against to the principles of natural justice.
y) The petitioner has not furnished the copies of the entire documents with list annexed to this petition to her. Even though, she has filed a memo to furnish the same at her cost, but, after filing of memo, the petitioner has furnished some of the documents at random, even for several request made to her and Advocate on record, she did not furnishes the same. The documents No.7, 8, 9, (Copies of the same were not furnished to her) are all created, concocted fabricated, forged one as the petitioner is put to strict proof contents of the those documents and documents No.13 the copies of the photographs were also not furnished to her. Even she has filed a memo to furnish entire copies of documents and she is ready to bear the expenditure to obtain the same, even then, the petitioner has not come forwarded to furnish the copies with malafide intention, as such, as soon as she furnishes the same, 25 H.R.C.NO.274/2008 (SCCH-7) she reserves her right to file additional objections by seeking permission of this Hon'ble Honorable Court.
z) In view of the above facts and circumstances, the Petitioner is not entitled for a relief/s urged by her. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition with exemplary costs.
6. In order to prove her case, the Petitioner herself has been examined as P.W.1 and has also examined two witnesses as P.W.2 and P.W.3 by filing the affidavits as their examination- in-chief and has placed reliance upon Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.16. On the other hand, the Respondent has examined her General Power of Attorney Holder as R.W.1 by filing an affidavit as her examination-in-chief and has placed reliance upon Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.63.
7. Heard the arguments. The Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner has filed the written argument.
8. In support of the submission, the Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner Sri. Ningappa A. has placed reliance upon the decisions reported in,
i) (1990) 2 Supreme Court Cases 58 (Vidhya Dhari Bhagat V/s Allahabad Law Journal Co. Ltd.,), wherein, it is observed that, Rent Control and Eviction-Eviction-Respondent- entry of tenant under Section 19, Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958-Recovery of possession by landlord pursuant to an order made under Section 14(1) proviso (e) a condition precedent to tenant's application for Respondent-entry 26 H.R.C.NO.274/2008 (SCCH-7) under Section 19(2)-Two eviction suits filed, first under Section 14(1) proviso (e) on ground of bonafide requirement and later under Section 14(1) (a) on ground of non-payment of rent-First suit decreed but, six months time granted to tenant to vacate-Before expiry of the six months period, the subsequent suit compromised and accordingly tenant delivered possession to the landlady-Premises thereafter again let out to some other person-Application made by the original tenant for Respondent- entry under Section 19(2)-Since possession was delivered as per compromise recorded in the suit based on arrears of rent under Section 14(1) proviso (a) and not in execution of decree unde5r Section 14(1) proviso(e), held, application under Section 19(2) not maintainable.
ii) Kar.L.J. 1990 (1) 331 HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA (Shivanand Govind Nayak V/s Vivekanand Shrikamal Patil and Others), wherein, it is observed that, A) KARNATAKA RENT CONTROL ACT, 1961,ss.25 (1) & 4 (1) r/w S.21 (1) (h)-Landlord obtaining possession of premises U/s.21 (1)(h) cannot be compelled to occupy the same if the premises requires repairs-Not occupying the premises during the period of affecting repairs does not amount to ceasing to occupy the premises so as to attract S.4(1)-Not also possible to hold that, the premises are not occupied by the landlord so as to attract S.25(1)-Explained.
iii) ILR 1987 Karnataka 772 (Vasanth Gururao Desai V/s Nabhiraj-Padmappa Kunder), wherein, it is observed that, KARNATAKA RENT CONTROL ACT, 1961(Karnataka Act No.22 of 1961)-Section 25- Intendment-Occupation, compotation-Physical possession not necessary retention of control 27 H.R.C.NO.274/2008 (SCCH-7) over premises in occupation-Section aims at avoidance of fraudulent eviction-Reentry impermissible if intention not fraudulent.
HELD:
It is not necessary that, the landlord should be in physical possession-If the premises are under his control and a servant is kept to watch the premises, such an occupation would be full and complete possession, in the eye of law. It is not uncommon many families maintain a portion of their building as guest room and those who are affluent, have a separate guest house. It is to facilitate their frequently coming guests. In such a case, it cannot be said that, the portion earmarked as guest room or guest house is not occupied by landlord. The principle intended under Section 25 is to avoid fraudulent eviction of the tenant.
If there is no fraudulent intention, Re-entry by ex-tenant impermissible.
iv) 1986 (2) KLJ Short Note No.36, wherein, it is observed that, The Karnataka Rent Control Act 1961, Section 25 redelivery of the possession-
Landlord fails to occupy within the period of Ninety days-
The interpretation of the word "occupation found in section 25 of the Act, the said provision inter-alia provides that, where a decree for eviction has been passed by the Court on the ground under Section 21(1) (b) of the act and the premises are not occupied within a period of three months from the date the land lord recovers possession of the premises, the tenant can seek redelivery of vacant possession of the premises from the landlord or any person who may be in occupation thereof 28 H.R.C.NO.274/2008 (SCCH-7) After securing possession of the premises the landlord sought for a sanctioned plan from the local authority and made arrangements to start the construction of the premises. The brothers and wife of the landlord were often visiting the premises for supervising the repairs and reconstruction that, was being carried out that, some portion of the premises vacated by the tenant, was no in a habitable condition in fact some portions covering the essential amenities were without root in the circumstances that, landlord cannot reasonable be expected to occupy the premises in the same condition from the commissioners report also it is evident that, the landlord had in fact occupied the premises by him during his inspection.
In this view of the matter it appears that, the tenant could not have invoked the provisions of Section 25 of the act and sought for redelivery of the premises as a matter of fact it seems the conduct of the tenant that, his claim is patently malafide and amounts to abuse of the process of the Court the C.R.P, is dismissed.
9. Now, the Points that arise for consideration are as follows;
POINTS
1. Whether the Petitioner has made out sufficient and reasonable grounds for re- possession of the petition schedule premises under Section 27(2) (o) and Section 35(2) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999?
2. Whether the petition filed by the Petitioner is maintainable?
29 H.R.C.NO.274/2008(SCCH-7)
3. Whether the Petitioner is entitled for the reliefs as prayed for?
4. What Order?
10. My answers to the above said Points are as follows;
Point No.1 : In the Negative,
Point No.2 : In the Negative,
Point No.3 : In the Negative,
Point No.4 : As per the final Order,
for the following;
REASONS
11. POINTS NO.1 TO 3 :- As these Points are inter-
linked with each other, to avoid repetition of discussion, these Points are taken together for common consideration.
12. The petitioner has filed the present petition as against the Respondent under Section 27 (2) (o) and Section 35 (2) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 praying to pass on order of finding a fact that, she is denying the ownership of Respondent is in bonafide manner and to direct the Respondent to put back her in possession or to pass any other order or directions as this Hon'ble Court thinks deem fit.
13. The P.W.1, who is the Petitioner has suggested in her examination-in-chief that, she along with her family was 30 H.R.C.NO.274/2008 (SCCH-7) inducted in the petition schedule permission with electricity and no water as a tenant in the year 1989 under Rental Agreement on 16.12.1992 and Revenue an additional advance of Rupees 4,000/-, total advance Rent deposit of Rupees.10,000/- and a monthly rent of Rupees.425/-. She has further stated that, the Respondent has claimed the title over the schedule property under Registered Sale Deed and the dimension of the property is about 23 ft and 21 Feet vacant site, which is North to South 21 Feet and East to West 23 Feet. She is further stated that, the BBMP through its Revenue Department of Madivala Sub Division, Bangalore had replied on 17.2.2007 that, the Property No.12 situated at Puttaianapalya, Bangalore stands in the name of Dodda Muniswamappa, Property; No.54 stands in the name of Sanjeevamma the Property No.5/98 is not found at the entries made at Corporation Registered and Property No.13/54 stands in the name of Smt. Rathnamma. She has further stated that, she is applied for Khatha Certificate before the BBMP, Bangalore over the Property bearing No.12 of Puttaianapalya, the said to be the actual property standing in the name of Dodda Muniswamappa, whether she was inducted as a tenant by the Respondent. She has further stated that, the actual owner of land lord of the Property bearing No.12 situated at Puttainahapalya that, his legal representative of Dodda Muniswamappa, who has instituted a suit for Corporation and Bill Tax to be Rupees 700/- and others cess, in total Rupees 962.85. She has further stated that, the Bangalore City Corporation record has entered on 1.4.1996 in regard to index over residential and vacant sites took to old No.13 and New No.54, measuring about 23 Ft. x 21Ft. consisting of 2 square 31 H.R.C.NO.274/2008 (SCCH-7) feet, standing in the name of Smt. Ratnamma. She has further stated that, the Respondent's house property Number is 13/54, situated at 2nd Main Road, Puttaianapalya, Bangalore and the copy of the katha Certificate in respect of Property No.13/54 standing in the name of the respondent. She has further stated that, she had applied for particulars regarding property No.12, property No.13/54 Property No.54, property No.5/98, before the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike under the Right to Information Act on 22.1.2007 and the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, through its revenue Department of Madivala Sub-division, Bangalore had replied on 7.2.2007 that, the property No.12, situated at Puttaianapalya, Bangalore stands in the name of Dodda Muniswamappa, property No.54 of the same locality stands in the name of Sanjeevamma, property No.5/98 is not found at the entries made at Corporation register and property No.13/54 of the same locality stands in the name of Smt. Ratnamma i.e., the Respondent. She has further stated that, she had applied khata Certificate before the BBMP Bangalore over the property bearing No.12 of Puttaiapalya said to be the actual property standing in the name of the Doddamuniswamappa, where she was inducted as a tenant by the respondent. She has further stated that, the actual owner of land lord of the property bearing No.12, situated at Puttainapalaya, Bangalore, the Legal representative of the said Dodda Muniswamappa has instituted a suit for declaration and possession, over the schedule property, where the respondent is defendant No.1 and as a defendant No.2 bearing FR O.S. No.8784/07 on 02.11.2007 before the Prl. City Civil & Session Judge at Bangalore City registered as P.Misc.8/2008. She has further 32 H.R.C.NO.274/2008 (SCCH-7) stated that, the respondent through her special power of attorney holder K. Usha had filed a petition for eviction against me in HRC No.586/2002, by concocting and fabricating a false schedule is not practically existing before the revenue authority and none of the title deeds Corroborate, made out of own version as follows:-
All the piece and parcel of the residential house, premises bearing No.5/95, old Corporation No.12, House No.13/54, Khata No.54, Corporation division No.60 (Old Dvn. No.35) situated at Puttaianapalya, Bangalore, measuring East to West 23 feet and North to South 21 feet consisting of one room, one hall, kitchen, bathroom, toilet and having asbestos sheet roofing, electricity, Sanitary facilities with cement flooring, and the property is bounced on east by : Venkatappa's property, now the property belonging to respondent's son L.Ramesh, West by : Venkatesh Naganna's property and now private property, North by : Passage Road thereafter vacant site, south by property of Munirangappa @ Munilinganna's property. The GPA Holder was collecting rent up to date before the Court itself, unfortunately the petition is allowed in favour of respondent, as required under Section 27(2) (a), 27(2) (j) (l) and (r) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, directing her to vacate and hand over vacant possession of the property within one month and other recital.
14. She has further stated that, a case bearing No.HRC No.1984/1998, before small Cause Judge at Bangalore one Smt. Shashi, had filed against V. Karthikeyan, the legally wed husband of the respondent, where the husband of the respondent has deposed before the Court in his evidence that, 33 H.R.C.NO.274/2008 (SCCH-7) he owns a house in the name of his wife is false and the sale-
deed said to be in the name of Ratnamma and the said Ratnamma is wife of Kantharaj and not his wife, whereas, at the cause title of the Case No.HRC 586/2002, both the names are mentioned. She has further stated that, the Power of attorney Holder of the Respondent had instituted the case No.HRC 586/2002 and also deposed in place of the respondent, contradicting the principles of law as laid down by the Supreme Court of India, reported at ILR 2005 729, holding that, Power of attorney holder shall be witness only, in case the principal could not be present before Court a Court Commissioner has to be appointed for the said purpose and the High Court of Karnataka, has held in a case reported at 2004(3) Karnataka L.J. 455, where the request of Power of Attorney Holder was rejected by the trial Court and the same was upheld by the High Court. She has further stated that, the respondent through her power of attorney holder had filed an execution petition, against her bearing Ex.Case No.519/2008 and has received the possession on 25.2.2008, concocting the cause title at the Judgment debtor address column. She has further stated that, the respondent, after misguiding and misleading the Court of law, the aforesaid act as put up at the above said facts, the respondent had vacated her under the due process of law, over the property belonging to some other third person, has not occupied the house as to this day. She has further stated that, the respondent inspite of not the actual and true owner of the schedule property was successful in legally vacating her from the schedule property on 25.2.2008 and has not occupied the schedule premises as to this day, aggrieved by the same, the above petition is 34 H.R.C.NO.274/2008 (SCCH-7) moved for ample interference of this Hon'ble Court. She has further stated that, she has not dispatched any written legal notice as it is not mandatory required, in view of the invocation of the above relevant provisions of the K.R. Act, 1999.
15. The Petitioner has produced Ex.P.1 Judgment passed in HRC.No.586/2002, Ex.P.2 Decree, Ex.P.3 Order passed in Rev. Petition No.121/2008 in HRRP.No.7/2008, Ex.P.4 Order passed in W.P.No.458/2008, Ex.P.5 Deposition of Karthikeyan, Ex.P.6 Order sheet of F.R.No.8784/2007, Ex.P.7 Property Extract, Ex.P.8 Notice, Ex.P.9 Certificate, Ex.P.10 Letter dated 05.09.2007, Ex.P.11 Application filed under Section 6/1 of Right to Information Act, Ex.P.12 two Positive Photographs, Ex.P.13 Khatha Extract issued by BBMP, Ex.P.14 Paying guest in Annapurneshwari P.G., Ex.P.15 Letter addressed to her and Ex.P.16 Postal window receipt.
16. The Petitioner has also examined the P.W.2, who has stated in her examination-in-chief that, the petitioner and respondent, both are well known to her for the past several years and the schedule premises bearing No.12 and Door No.5/98 is the ancestral property of her Late father Muniswamappa, where the sale-deed executed in favour of one 'Ratnamma' by her deceased father and her deceased brother Late Jayaram. She has further stated that, she is residing in front of the schedule property and the respondent is known as Kumaramma in their locality and she is a impersonified person as Ratnamma and Ratnamma is some other person, where the respondent had self declared as Ratnamma W/o Khantharaj about 35 years back, where, she 35 H.R.C.NO.274/2008 (SCCH-7) has come across a deposition by the Husband of the Respondent by name V.Karthikeyan has deposed in HRC No.1984/1998 that, Ratnamma does not hold or own any immovable property. She has further stated that, the petitioner was inducted as a tenant at the schedule premises in the year 1989 and by misguiding and misleading the Court of law, the respondent was successful in evicting the petitioner, as to this day, none are residing in the schedule premises and the respondent has kept in lock as she is residing in House No.28, situated in the next cross, where the schedule premises is situated.
17. The Petitioner has also examined P.W.3, who has stated in his examination-in-chief that, he is working at BBMP office, at Jayanagagar shopping Complex, Bangalore and he is an independent witness to depose voluntarily and he is well aware of the facts and circumstances of the case. He has further stated that, the schedule property bearing No.5/98, measuring 18'x20', situated at Puttainapalya, Bangalore, is known to him for the past 11 years and he has seen Mahadevamma and her family residing at that house for the past 4 years and the house is remained closed and there are no persons residing at that house and on enquiry from different person, he came to know that, the person or respondent Ratnamma is known as Kumaramma one identifies her by name Ratnamma.
18. It is pertinent to note to here that, the Respondent by filing objections to the main petition as well as by examining the R.W.1, who is her daughter as well as her GPA holder of the Respondent and by producing Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.63, has 36 H.R.C.NO.274/2008 (SCCH-7) denied the entire case made out by the petitioner as against her and also questioned the very maintainability of the petition.
19. No doubt the above said oral version of P.W.1 to P.W.3 and the contents of Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.16 are corroborated with the case made out by the Petitioner in the present petition. But, only based on the said evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 and the contents of Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.16, it cannot be said that, the Petition filed by the Petitioner as against the Respondent is maintainable and she has proved her specific case as against the Respondent in respect of the petition schedule premises and as such, she is entitled to put back the possession of the petition schedule premises from the Respondent as prayed for, as, the evidence elicited from the mouth of P.W.1 to P.W.3 by the Respondent as well as the maintainability of the present possession filed by the Petitioner as against the Respondent in respect of the Petition schedule premises and the evidence adduced by the Respondent to consider her defence, can also be looked into for consideration, which is clear from the following discussions.
20. The P.W.2 in her cross-examination has shown her ignorance about the number of the present case, the ground urged by the Petitioner to file the present petition as against the Respondent, measurement of the petition schedule premises, objections filed by the Respondent to Ex.R.8, the exact situation of the property bearing No.46/2012, the Commission Report submitted by the Court Commissioner in P.Misc.8/2008 and filing of HRC No.1984/1998 and its proceedings. She has further clearly admitted that, she does 37 H.R.C.NO.274/2008 (SCCH-7) not know the contents of the affidavit submitted by her and the contents of the affidavit prepared by the Advocate for Petitioner as per instructions of the Petitioner. From this, it is made crystal clear that, the P.W.2 has no knowledge about the case made out by the Petitioner as against the Respondent and the Petition schedule premises and even she does not know the contents of the affidavit, which has been filed by herself for her examination-in-chief. Further, she has clearly stated in her cross-examination that, since she has filed a case, she came to the Court to give evidence in the present case and she has not given evidence before the Court stating that, the property bearing No.12 and Door No.5/98 was sold by her father Muniswamappa and his son Jayaram and one Smt. Rathnamma i.e., Respondent. Further, she has clearly identified the measurement of the property shown in Ex.R.6 and Ex.R.7 Photographs relating to the said property. From the said evidence of P.W.2, it prima-facie appears that, whatever stated by the P.W.2 I in her examination-in-chief is clearly go by in her cross-examination. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.2 no way helped to the Petitioner to consider her case.
21. The P.W.3 in his cross-examination has also shown his ignorance about the number of the petition schedule property, its measurement, family particulars of the Respondent, boundaries of the petition schedule property, filing the eviction petition by the Respondent as against the Petitioner, wherein, the Respondent has obtained eviction decree, appeal prepared by the Petitioner as against the said eviction decree and Agreement came into existence between the Petitioner and Respondent. He has also clearly admitted that, he does not 38 H.R.C.NO.274/2008 (SCCH-7) know the contents of affidavit, which has been filed by him as his examination-in-chief. Though, the P.W.3 has stated the measurement of the petition schedule property is 18 Feet x 20 Feet, he has not stated anything about the other relevant facts and consideration of the claim sought by the Petitioner as against the Respondent, in his cross-examination. Furthermore, the P.W.3 in his cross-examination has clearly stated that, he has seen the petition schedule property about 4 to 5 years back and recently, he has not seen the petition schedule property. From this, it is further made crystal that, the P.W.3 has no knowledge about the present situation of the petition schedule property. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.3 is also no way helped to the Petitioner to consider her claim as against the Respondent in respect of the petition schedule property.
22. The P.W.1, who is the Petitioner in her cross- examination has admitted that, the Respondent has filed HRC No.586/2002 as against her under Section 27 (2), (a), (r), (j) and (l) of the Karnataka Rent Act and the Revision Petition preferred by her before the Hon'ble High Court as against the Order passed in the said HRC No.586/2002. It is pertinent to note here that, the said HRC No.586/2002 admittedly filed by the Respondent as against the present Petitioner under Section 27 (2), (a), (r), (j) and (l) of the Karnataka Rent Act, which was allowed on 22.12.2007 and the Revision petition prepared by the present Petitioner was dismissed on 18.01.2008. The same is clear from the contents of Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.4. The P.W.1 has further admitted that, the Respondent had filed Execution Petition No.519/2008 and the Respondent 39 H.R.C.NO.274/2008 (SCCH-7) took the possession of the petition schedule property by broken the open lock with the Police help and she has filed objections in the said execution petition claiming Rupees 10,000/-, which was paid as an advance. From the said evidence of P.W.1, it appears that, by virtue of the order passed in HRC No.586/2002, the present Respondent took possession of the Petition schedule property from the present Petitioner by filing Execution Petition No.519/2008. From this, it is made crystal clear that, the Respondent took the possession of the Petition schedule premises from the Petitioner in accordance with law and there is no Appeal or Revision pending as against the said orders passed by the competent Court of law.
23. The P.W.1 in her cross-examination has shown her ignorance that, in earlier HRC proceedings, the competent Courts have held that, there was jural relationship between the Respondent and her regarding the petition schedule property. When the Petitioner has admitted about the very filing of HRC No.586/2002 by the Respondent as against her in respect of the petition schedule premises and its disposal on merits by the competent Court of law as well as taken possession of petition schedule property by the Respondent from the Petitioner in accordance with law by filing Execution Petition No.519/2008, it is made crystal clear that, the relationship between the present petitioner and Respondent in respect of the present schedule premises was that of tenant and land lord and not otherwise. Therefore, even though the P.W.1 has shown her ignorance about the said relationship, it no way helped to her to consider the present petition.
40 H.R.C.NO.274/2008(SCCH-7)
24. The P.W.1 has further shown her ignorance by saying that, she does not know whether the Respondent taken up the work of repair pertaining to petition schedule property and contempt proceedings was initiated against the Respondent in the proceedings of P.Misc.08/2008 and C.C.C.No.542/2008, which was dismissed for non-prosecution by the Hon'ble High Court and the restoration of petition filed by her to restore the said petition, which was also dismissed. She has further shown her ignorance about the Commission Report submitted by the Court Commissioner in P.Mis.8/2008, wherein, it is mentioned that, as on 25.07.2008, the building construction work was almost completed. Though, the P.W.1 has admitted that, she has received notice in the said miscellaneous petition and put her signature in the order sheet on the date, when the order of status quo was passed, she has shown her ignorance about the proceedings of P.Misc., contempt and restoration petition. From this, it appears that, the Petitioner herself is not definite about her specific case.
25. The P.W.1 has further stated in her cross-examination that, she has no idea regarding prepare of the Mahazar by the Court Bailiff in the proceedings of Ex.P.No.519/2008 and she was not kept the schedule property as vacant prior to the date of execution of delivery warrant. She has further stated that, she has not lodged a complaint before the Police regarding the missing movables from the petition schedule property and she has not filed any application in the execution proceedings alleging that, her movables where in the petition schedule property as on the date of execution of delivery warrant and she has not issued any notice to the Respondent calling upon 41 H.R.C.NO.274/2008 (SCCH-7) her to handed over moveable. From this, it appears that, no proper legal steps taken by the Petitioner as against the Respondent in a proper time. More so, the P.W.1, in her cross- examination voluntarily stated that, since she is not an owner of the property, the question of issuing notice does not arise. Furthermore, it is not established by the Petitioner that, there is a fraudulent intention in eviction of her from the petition premises by the Respondent.
26. Though the Petitioner was a Respondent in HRC No.586/02, she has stated in her cross-examination that, she has not identified that, Respondent has taken the possession of the suit schedule premises through process of law on 12.03.2008. The Ex.R.11 and Ex.R.12 Order and Decree passed in HRC No.586/02, Ex.R.14 Delivery Warrant, Ex.R.15 Order Sheet relating to E.P.No.518/08, Ex.R.16 Memo dated 15.06.2008, Ex.R.18 Spot Mahazar and Ex.R.19 Possession Receipt produced by the Respondent clearly disclosed that, the Respondent has taken the vacant possession of the petition schedule property through Court Process on 12.03.2008. Further, the P.W.1 has clearly identified Ex.P.12 Photographs by saying that, it was the position of the petition schedule property, when it was in her occupation. Though it is stated by the P.W.1 in her cross-examination that, she has filed the present petition for re-possession of the petition schedule property since the Respondent is not the owner of the Petition schedule property and she is liable to be handed over the same to her, the Petitioner has not produced any authenticated documents to believe and accept the said version. Even she has shown in her ignorance by saying that, she does not know 42 H.R.C.NO.274/2008 (SCCH-7) eviction decree was passed in HRC No.586/2002 on one of the ground that, she has caused substantial damages to the petition schedule property. Even she has shown her ignorance about the proceedings of P.Misc and Criminal case.
27. From the above said evidence, which is elicited from the mouth of P.W.1 from the Respondent, it clearly goes to show that, without any basis and acceptable material evidence, the Petitioner has filed the present petition praying for re- possession of the petition schedule property to her by denying the ownership of the Respondent under Section 27(2) (o) and Sec 35(2) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999. It is further pertinent to note here that, though the R.W.1, who is the daughter as well as the GPA holder of the Respondent, has been cross-examined by the Petitioner, nothing has been elicited from her mouth about her case. On the other hand, the R.W.1 in her cross-examination has clearly stated that, the Petitioner was a tenant from 2000-2008 in respect of the petition schedule premises and in the year 2008, on the basis of the Order passed in HRC No.586/2002 they have vacated the Petitioner. She has further clearly admitted that, she has taken possession of the petition schedule property in the year 2008 on the basis of the Court Order and she is residing along with her family members in the Petition schedule property.
28. No doubt, the R.W.1 has admitted that, Ex.P.13 Khata Extract is standing in the name of Shashi and the measurement of the said property is shown as 416 Sq.ft. But, it no way helped to the Petitioner to consider her case, as it is clearly admitted by the R.W.1 in her cross-examination that, 43 H.R.C.NO.274/2008 (SCCH-7) the said Shashi had filed eviction petition as against her in the year 1998, which was dismissed on merits.
29. Section 27(2) (o) of the Karnataka Rent Act 1999, reads thus;
"that the tenant in his reply having denied the ownership of landlord, has failed to prove it or that such denial was not made in a bonafide manner"
30. As this Court has already observed that, the Respondent had obtained an Order and Decree for eviction in HRC No.586/2002, which was filed as against the present petitioner under Section 27(2) (a) (j) (l) (r) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 and she had already taken possession of the petition schedule premises from the Respondent with due process of law. It is pertinent to note here that, it is not the case of the Petitioner that, she denied the ownership of the Respondent over the petition schedule premises in the reply notice and in the objections filed by her in the said HRC proceedings and the same has been proved by her in the said proceedings by adducing acceptable material evidence. In the said proceedings, only the jural relationship of land lord and tenant in respect of the petition schedule Premises is decided, as the scope of the petition was limited in the said HRC proceedings. Further, the appeal preferred by the Petitioner as against the said Order and Decree passed in HRC No.586/2002 is also dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in HRRP No.7/08. Further it is well settled principal of law that, the tenant, who has failed to prove his denial of tenant, who has 44 H.R.C.NO.274/2008 (SCCH-7) unsuccessfully set up defence that, the party, who initiated eviction proceedings is not an owner of tenanted premises, renders himself liable to be evicted for his failure to prove his assertion. The burden of proof that, the person, who claims eviction of the tenant is not the owner of the premises and not the landlord, is cast on the tenant, who sets up the defence that, the eviction Petitioner is not that owner. If a tenant, who initially sets up this defence fails to make good this assertion, then he renders himself liable for eviction for setting up the defence itself. The said provision appears to be one intended to discourage setting up of frivolous defence by a tenant. Having regard to the provisions of Section 27(2) (o) there was no escape for the tenant, who had taken up the plea that, the Petitioner was not the landlord, from suffering an order of eviction, when he could not substantiate his plea. Further Section 27(1) of the Karnataka Rent Act is only applicable to the land lord, who seeks and recovers the possession of the premises as against the tenant, that means, the provision of law is exclusively available to the landlord and not for the tenant. Therefore Sec 27(2) (o) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 is exclusively available for the benefit of the landlord i.e., the owner of the property and not otherwise. When the Petitioner is already evicted from the petition schedule Premises by the Respondent by virtue of the legal and valid Order and Decree passed in HRC No.586/2002 as a tenant, the petitioner has no locus-standi to claim the relief under Section 27(2) (o) of the Karnataka Rent Act as against the Respondent in respect of the same petition schedule premises. More so, the R.W.1, in her cross-examination has clearly stated that, she is residing along with her family members in the petition schedule premises.
45 H.R.C.NO.274/2008(SCCH-7) Therefore, the petition filed by the Petitioner as against the Respondent under Section 27(2) (o) of the Karnataka Rent Act is not maintainable.
31. Section 35 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, reads thus;
Recovery of possession for occupation and Re-entry:-
(1) Where a landlord recovers possession of any premises from the tenant in pursuance of an order made under clause 9f) of sub-section(2) of Section 27, or under Sections 28,29,30,31 or 37 the landlord shall not, except with the permission of the Court obtained in the prescribed manner, Respondent-let the whole or any part of the premises within three years, from the date of obtaining such possession, and in granting such permission, the Court may direct the landlord or unless the tenant waives the right put such evicted tenant in possession of the premises.
Provided that, where a landlord recovers possession of any premises from the tenant in pursuance of an order made under clause (r) of sub-section (2) of Section 27 for occupation after Respondent-construction or Respondent-building the period of three years shall be reckoned from the date of completion of Respondent-construction or Respondent-building, as the case may be.
46 H.R.C.NO.274/2008(SCCH-7) (2) Where a landlord recovers possession of nay premises as aforesaid and the premises are not occupied by the landlord or by the person for whose benefit the premises are held, within two months of obtaining such possession, or that the premises having been so occupied are, at any time within three years from the date of obtaining possession, Respondent-let to any person other that the evicted tenant without obtaining the permission of the Court under sub-section (1) or possession of such premises is transferred to another person for reasons which do not appear to the Court to be bonafide the Court may on an application made to him in this behalf by such evicted tenant within such time as may be prescribed direct the landlord to put the tenant in possession.
32. The Petitioner has also claimed the relief under Section 35(2) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999. As this Court has already observed that, the Respondent has already taken the possession of the petition schedule premises from the Respondent on 12.03.2008 in pursuance of the Order and Decree passed in HRC No.586/02. In the said HRC No.586/02, the Hon'ble Court has also ordered to allow the said petition as against the Respondent under Section 27(2) (a) (j) (l) and (r) of the Karnataka Rent Act. The very admission made by the R.W.1 during in her cross-examination that, she is residing along with her family members in petition schedule property, clearly 47 H.R.C.NO.274/2008 (SCCH-7) disclosed that, subsequent to obtaining the possession of the petition schedule premises, the Respondent has repaired the said premises for her need and now it is in good condition and occupation. By invoking Section 27(2) (r) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, also the Petitioner had filed the said HRC proceedings and the said ground urged by the Petitioner is allowed. Hence, the Petitioner has no locus-standi to claim re- possession of the petition schedule premises. From this, it appears that, by filing the present petition, the Petitioner has abused the process of law. Furthermore, no specific order is passed in the said HRC proceedings that, after the repair of the petition schedule premises, again it shall be re-let to the Petitioner within 3 years from the date of obtaining the possession. Therefore, Section 35(2) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, claimed by the Petitioner as against the Respondent in respect of the petition schedule premises not at all applicable to the present petition.
33. Further, the Petitioner has filed the present petition under the Provisions of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, before this Small Cause Court. It shows that, the scope of the petition is very limited. The Petitioner has claimed re-possession of the petition schedule premises under the provisions of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999. Therefore, this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present petition. Furthermore, the question of title cannot be decided in the present petition, since, the Petitioner is an evicted tenant in respect of the same petition schedule premises and she has no right to take shelter under Section 35(2) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999. Further, before filing the present petition, the 48 H.R.C.NO.274/2008 (SCCH-7) Petitioner has not issued any notice to the Respondent calling upon her for re-possession of the petition schedule premises along with the facts and circumstances narrated in the present petition. Non-issuance of notice by the Petitioner to the Respondent before filing the present petition is also very much fatal to consider the case of the Petitioner in the present petition.
34. Under the above said facts and circumstances as well as the reasons given, this Court has come to the conclusion that, the Petitioner has utterly fail to prove her specific case to get the reliefs as against the Respondent in respect of the petition schedule premises and the petition filed by the Petitioner is not maintainable. Therefore, the Petitioner is not entitled for the reliefs as prayed for in the present petition as against the Respondent. Hence, the petition filed by the petitioner as against the Respondent is liable to be rejected. In view of the said reasons, the principles enunciated in the decisions cited by the Learned Counsel appearing by the Respondent are aptly applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case on hand. Accordingly, I answered Points No.1 to 3 in the Negative.
35. POINT NO.4 :- For the aforesaid reasons, I proceed to pass the following, ORDER The petition filed by the Petitioner under Section 27 (2) (o) and Section 49 H.R.C.NO.274/2008 (SCCH-7) 35(2) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 is hereby rejected.
No order as to costs.
(Dictated to the Stenographers, transcribed and typed by them, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 28th day of January, 2015.) (INDIRA MAILSWAMY CHETTIYAR) IX Addl.Small Causes Judge & XXXIV ACMM, Court of Small Causes, Member, MACT-7, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE
1. WITNESSES EXAMINED BY THE PETITIONER :-
P.W.1 : Smt. Mahadevamma
P.W.2 : Smt. Hanumakka
P.W.3 : Sri.Sagayaraj
2. DOCUMENTS MARKED BY THE PETITIONER :-
Ex.P.1 : Copy of the Judgment of HRC
No.586/2002
Ex.P.2 : Copy of decree
Ex.P.3 : Copy of the order passed in Rev.
Petition No.121/2008 in
HRRP.No.7/2008
Ex.P.4 : Copy of the order passed in
W.P.No.458/2008
Ex.P.5 : Copy of Deposition of Karthikeyan
Ex.P.6 : Order sheet of FIR No.8784/2007
Ex.P.7 : Copy of the Property Extract
Ex.P.8 : Copy of the notice
Ex.P.9 : Copy of the Certificate
Ex.P.10 : Copy of the Letter dtd. 5.09.2007
50 H.R.C.NO.274/2008
(SCCH-7)
Ex.P.11 : Copy of the application filed U/s.6/1 of
Right to Information Act
Ex.P.12 : Two positive photographs `
Ex.P.13 : Khatha Extract issued by BBMP
Ex.P.14 : Paying guest card
Ex.P.15 : Address proof
Ex.P.16 : Post Window receipt
3. WITNESSES EXAMINED BY THE RESPONDENTS :-
R.W.1 : K.Usha
4. DOCUMENTS MARKED BY THE RESPONDENTS :-
Ex.R.1 : Copy of P.Misc 8/08
Ex.R.2 : Copy of Order Sheet dtd 29/7/2008
Ex.R.3 : Copy of Order Sheet
Ex.R.4 : Copy of I.A.No.2
Ex.R.5 : Copy of Affidavit
Ex.R.6 : Khatha Extract
Ex.R.7 : Photographs
Ex.R.8 : Petition
Ex.R.9 : Affidavit
Ex.R.10 : Copy of Special Power of Attorney
Ex.R.11 : Copy of Order & Decree
Ex.R.12 : Copy of Order & Decree
Ex.R.13 : Copy of Order passed in HRRP
Ex.R.14 : Delivery Warrant
Ex.R.15 : Copy of order sheet
Ex.R.16 : Memo
Ex.R.17 : Interim Application
Ex.R.17(a) : Objection
Ex.R.18 : Copy of spot mahazar
Ex.R.19 : Copy of possession receipt
Ex.R.20 : Copy of photographs (15 nos.)
Ex.R.21 : Positive photographs (15 nos.)
Ex.R.21(a) : Negative Photographs
Ex.R.22 : Copy of Registered Sale Deed
dtd.25.3.1995
Ex.R.23 : Copy of Registered Sale Deed
dtd.22.02.2003
51 H.R.C.NO.274/2008
(SCCH-7)
Ex.R.24 : Copy of Encumbrance Certificate
Ex.R.25 : Copy of Tax Paid Receipt
Ex.R.26 : Copy of Assessment Extract
Ex.R.27 : Copy of Sanction Plan
Ex.R.28 : Copy of Warming Ceremony Card
Ex.R.29 : Copy of Photographs (4 in Nos.)
Ex.R.30 : Copy of Order Sheet of P.Mis.
No.8/2008
Ex.R.31 : Copy of Valuation Receipt
Ex.R.32 : Copy of Vakalath
Ex.R.33 : Copy of Commissioner Report
Ex.R.34 : Copy of List of Documents
Ex.R.35 : Copy of Objection statement
Ex.R.36 : Copy of entire order sheet CCC
No.542/2008
Ex.R.37 : Copy of Order passed by Hon'ble High
Court in CCC 542/2008
Ex.R.38 : Copy of Synopsis
Ex.R.39 : Copy of Petition
Ex.R.40 : Copy of objection
Ex.R.41 : Copy of IE
Ex.R.42 : Copy of Khatha Extract
Ex.R.43 : Copy of Consolidated Demand Bill
Ex.R.44 : Copy of Ledger Extract
Ex.R.45 : Cash receipt
Ex.R.46 : Demand bills (5 Nos.)
Ex.R.47 : Receipts (4 Nos.)
Ex.R.48 : Positive Photographs (9 Nos.)
Ex.R.48(a) : CD photographs
Ex.R.49 : Property Tax Receipts (2 Nos.)
Ex.R.50 : Copy of Misc.Petition
Ex.R.51 : Copy of the Order passed in Misc.
Ex.R.52 : Copy of the Order passed by Hon'ble
High Court
Ex.R.53 :
Ex.R.54 & : Order sheet and the Complaint
55
Ex.R.56 & : Notice issued by BESCOM
57
Ex.R.58 : Demand Bill
Ex.R.59 : Ledger Extract
52 H.R.C.NO.274/2008
(SCCH-7)
Ex.R.60 : Certified copy of Receipt of Electricity
Bill
Ex.R.61 : Order Sheet relating to PCR
Ex.P.62 : Final 'B' Report
Ex.P.63 : Certified copy of Notice
(INDIRA MAILSWAMY CHETTIYAR)
IX Addl. Small Causes Judge & XXXIV ACMM, Court of Small Causes, Member, MACT-7, Bangalore.
SCCH-7 Orders on Main Petition pronounced in Open Court (vide separate Order) The petition filed by the Petitioner under Section 27 (2) (o) and Section 35(2) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 is hereby rejected.
No order as to costs.
(INDIRA MAILSWAMY CHETTIYAR) IX Addl.Small Causes Judge & XXXIV ACMM, Court of Small Causes, Member, MACT-7, Bangalore.
53 H.R.C.NO.274/2008(SCCH-7) SCCH-7 IN THE COURT OF SMALL CAUSES COURT AT BANGALORE HRC No.274/2008 Petitioner/s : Smt.Mahadevamma, W/o Late Lakshminarasimhaiah, Aged 54 years, No.5/98, Puttainapalya, 2nd Main, 9th Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore-560 069.
Presently residing at:
No.8/A, Yengammaraju Layout, J.P.Nagar, 5th Phase, Bangalore-78.
(By Sri. Ningappa. A., Adv.,)
Vs.
Respondent/s : Smt.Rathnamma,
W/o Karthikeyan @ Kantharaj,
Aged 57 years,
R/at No.28, Annaiyappa
Building, 26th 'B" Main,
Puttainapalya, 9th Block,
Jayanagar,
Bangalore-560 069.
(By Sri. Gopal, Adv.,)
CLAIM:
This suit coming on for final disposal before Sri , Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore, in the presence of Sri/Smt. Advocate for 54 H.R.C.NO.274/2008 (SCCH-7) the petitioner and Sri/Smt. Advocate, for the Respondent.
ORDER The petition filed by the Petitioner under Section 27 (2) (o) and Section 35(2) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 is hereby rejected.
No order as to costs.
And it is further ordered and decreed that, defendant do pay to the plaintiff, a sum of Rupees towards costs.
Given under my hand and seal of the Court this day of 2015.
Dy. Registrar, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore.
MEMORANDUM OF COST INCURRED IN THIS SUIT By the Petitioner Respondent Court fee paid on Petition Court fee paid on Powers Court fee paid on exhibits Service of Process + Postal charges Commissioner's fees Pleaders fee Total Rs.
SCHEDULE 55 H.R.C.NO.274/2008 (SCCH-7) All the piece and parcel of the residential A.C.C. Roofed, bearing Door No.5/98, Corporation No.12, measuring about 20 feet from East to West, 18 feet from North to South, situated at Puttainapalya, interior to 2nd Main Road, Jayanagar, 9th Block, Bangalore-69, which is bounded by, EAST : L. Ramesh property, WEST : Naganna's property, NORTH : 5 feet passage, SOUTH : Munirangappa's property.
Decree Drafted Scrutinised by
Dy.Registrar,
Court of Small
Causes, Decree Clerk Sheristedar
Bangalore.
56 H.R.C.NO.274/2008
(SCCH-7)
28.01.2015.
Orders on Main Petition pronounced in Open Court (vide separate Order) The petition filed by the Petitioner under Section 27 (2) (o) and Section 35(2) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 is hereby rejected.
No order as to costs.
(INDIRA MAILSWAMY CHETTIYAR) IX Addl.Small Causes Judge & XXXIV ACMM, Court of Small Causes, Member, MACT-7, Bangalore.57 H.R.C.NO.274/2008
(SCCH-7)