Karnataka High Court
Rudrappa vs M/S Lakhani & Sons on 23 October, 2009
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 23"' DAY OF OCTOBER 200;"9AE% BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND ETRAREDDYS I A REGULAR SECOND APPEAL N0,2T545'~QE ms , I T RSA cR013A.6/2009/E/W. REGULAR SECOND APPEAESVNQ. 254sDE* 2(IQ6 c/w. IN RSA.NO.2545/Q6 AND..RSA...CR.I.ACI.}3.t$}"()7':'= BE'£"VVf_i_f_3_I'_I' I. RUDRARPA A Vii, . As./0 SANGAPPA MALASHETTI AE0UT4.2 YEARS, 0cc;EL;s1NEss A' j A RTAT NEAR VEERANARAYANA "-'.___.TE1VIPLE:;~GADAG~582 101 . SMT BASAVANNEVVA V'?/MG BASAVANEPPA MALASHETTI A ' AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, " -- ..5OCC;HOUSEHOLD AND BUSINESS, R/AT NEAR VEERANARAYANA TEMPLE 3 GADAG682 101 3. PRAKASH S/O BASAVANEPPA MALASHETTI AGED ABOUT 24 YERAS, OCC;BUSINESS, . R/AT NEAR VEERANARAYzX1\":'A«TEM15::]3.-VI. V GADAG--582 101 4. SANTOSH A I S/O BASAVANEPPA MA A.A"SHET"H__ AGED ABOUT 23 YERAS, jj A 0cc:BUsINEssv, R/AT NEAR VEERANARAEYV ANA TEMPLE GADAG--58210l A 5. sANGAEPA;AR '. S/O EAs4AV'AI9EPRAE 'M._A LAvSiwfETTI AG_ED=ABO§JT 3Q=YERA._S, R/ATNEAR¢- ViEERA1*-EARAYANA TEMPLE GADAG682' 101 6. 'SMT NIRMALA" W/0 I-IALES1:LDALAVAI « A A'GE.D=ABOUT 32 YEARS, f E.OCC;¥%QVUSEHOLD WORK, ._ R)'14X'T_HIj'JiNAHADAGALI A DI.ST;~--BELLARY. ...APPELLANTS IN RSA2545/06 .. RESPONDENTS RSA.CR.OB.6/B7
%% ;€_]3'S"( SR1 G.R.ANDANIMATIri, ADVOCATE) é AND
1. M/ S LAKHANI & SONS NAM }OSHI ROAD, GADAG.
2. M/S LA.K.HAN1& SONS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM, NAM JOSHI ROAD, GADAG "
1 & 2~REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER',-._::
GULAMHUSSAIN KHAN MQH,AMMBD'"KHAN A LAKHANI, AGED ABOUT68 YEARS, _ _ OCC;BUSINESS, NAM30_SH1 ROAD, - V GADAG-582101 " 11
3. ALIRAZA S/O GULMHUSSAIN L.§\I{HANI, "~--._ A 1*<IAl\*i'JOS}-{i'-ROA'D,""---- A * GADAG682" 101 A
4. ASHARAEAL1 '-
3 S/Q 1<;HAN1v1O1e1AMMAD LAKHAN] « AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, j ,,OCC;.BUS1'NESS, . NAM_JQSHI ROAD, GADAG--582 101 " RESPONDENTS IN RSA2545/06 ...APPELANTS IN RSA.CR.0B.6/07 A 1, "(mjsR1 SADIQ.N.GOODWALA, ADV. FOR R/A~1 _ SR1 S.P.KULKARNI, ADV.) Z REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.2545/2006 IS PILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DT.31.7.2006 PASSED IN R.A.NO.37/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL...V_V"C:_i\/'IL JUDGE (SRDN), GADAG, ALLOWING TEE _ SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT IAISEDVV DECREEJJ DT.1.3.2005 PASSED IN O.S.1\¥O.1v68/2'()\')3S ONI;IiILE;OP THE III ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR. DN)I,EGAD"AG.I . I " "
RSA CR.OE.NO.6/2007k1'STILED UNDEERA~IQR.DE'R A41 I RULE 22 (1) R/W. SECTION OE CPCTAGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DEECREED DT.3VE1.,'7';~2o06 PASSED IN R.A.NO.37/2005 ON THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE"('SR;i5N), 'éiADAf}, .ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE _IUDGMENT AND DECREE DT.1.3.2065PIA§SE41§._VI'I=i1::Q.SNO.168/2003 ON THE PILE OP THE 'IIIIIADDL.~ CIVIL JUDGE (JRDN), GADAG. " . IN R'SA.NO;2546/o6A1xID RSA.CR.OE.9/07; I; ' RLJDRAPPA S/O SANGAPPA MALASHETTI AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS " ._OCC: BUSINESS '§ Rf AT NEAR VEERANARAYANA TEMPLE GADAG---S82 E01 SMT BASAVANNEVVA W/O BASAVANEPPA MALASHETTI AGED ABOUT 60 YEAS OCC: HOUSEHOLD AND BUSINESS R/AT NEAR VEERANARAYANA TEMPILQEV A GADAG-582 10E PRAKASH s/0 BASAVANEPPA MALAsHE'TTT AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS"-... " V . '. 0CC;BUs1NEss ' RJAT NEAR VEERANAR-.--AVY'AN-A'TEMPLE S GADAG--582 101 A SANTOSH- _ S/O BAS.A\[_ANEP_PA_ 1\ZEALASH1E_T"EI AGE{)RAARBOU'T23'":{EARS (ECG: TEIJSTIREASSS A R/AT 'NEARVEERANTARAYANA TEMPLE GAII)A_VCt-v582._101 A . T, SAANGAPPA A 's,ai0 BVASAVANEPPA MALASEETTI ' * A [%,GED'«,fiB'0UT 30 YEAS OC'€I.:"BUS.£'NESS A "'vT'R/AT"};\1E'AR VEERANARAYANA TEMPLE G ADAG582 101 SMT NIRMALA [ 'S W/O HALESH DALAVAI = QAGED ABOUT 32 YEARS OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK R/AT HUVINAHADAGALI DIST BELLARY . . .APPELLANTS IN RSA2546/06 .. RESPONDENTS RSA.CR.0B.97'Q7 (BY SRI G.R.ANDANIMATH, ADVOCATE) AND
1. ALIRAZA S/O GULAMHUSSAIN LAKHANI I A A AGED 32 YEARS occ: B_USI_NE,_S "
NAM JOSH} ROA'D..«_ 'A GADAG--582I0I I
5. ASHARAFALI S/O KHIANRIQII ::':\/I]9{IAD'I,IAIII{xI*II4INI AGEDISAE0U%1f54REARS GCC:'BUSiNE'SS I NAMJQSIII RO.A"D.___'"-
GADAG-582-E0Ai._v . I ...RESPONDENTS IN RSA2546/06 AAAAA ...APPELANTSIN RSA.CR.0B.9/07 SRI:[SIADIQ.N.G00DwALA, ADV. EOR R/A-1 AND SRI'jS..P~§;KULKARNI, ADV.) .. SECOND APPEAL 'NO.2546/2006 IS "F=IL_ED'" UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE ____I'._VJUDCiEMENT & DECREE DT.31.7.2006 PASSED IN ,_.:IR.A.NO.38/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. CIVIL Z JUDGE (SR.DN), GADAG, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE' DT.1.3.2005 PASSED IN O.S.NO.168/2003 ON THE EIIJE OF THE III ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN), GADAG. ; j RSA cR.OE.NO.9/07 IS FILED UNDEE. :ORDEIi. RULE 22(1) R/W. SECTION 100:-01?-CIfC.'A A JUDGEMENT & DECREE DT';T31;§7;2i)06'~. R.A.NO.38/2005 ON THE OF~. CIVILIEG» JUDGE (SR.DN), GADAG, ALLOWING TI~§]§_ APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE AND DECREE DT.1.3.2005 PASSED IN iV68-Z207Q3'AQN THE FILE OF THE 111 ADDLI CIVIL GADAG.
THE*ABJC-'§?E"APPEA.LS-A AND CROSS OBJECTIONS ARE COMINGNT.JONf FAOIYHEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELI.J\(Ef{ED"-TEE FOLLOWING:
~:J V-JUDGMENT JJJJJ ' He-aArdVVVthei_1.counSe1 for the appellants and the counsel for t1Ie..4TeSpOI1§1'e§I1fS.
2. The appeal having been admitted, the following substantial questions of law was framed:
"Whether in a suit filed for ejectrnent of _ the provisions of Transfer of Property Act, thel"
should make out a case of bona fide andireasoniable requirement. to be entitled to an ejectn1ent.i:lgit'i~ecre6; as 'held: b3}:"'tl1e":First"'i Appellate Court."
3. It ishot in"di'spute that.__thie. pré'sent appellant was the plaintiff C_ou.tt,ifwho»had in the first instance initiatediproc:ee_din§js' tlijrllitileil' the_lllKannataka Rent Control Act, 1961, insti't:1ting,_.la:--lfpet'it--i_oh« "under Section 2l(l)(h) seeking eviction of therespondent, on the ground that the suit premises l was rec1u.ired>.for his own use and occupation. The said petition i ~hav.iing"be_en d;isi'nissed, a revision petition is said to have been filed, Durinig the pendency of the revision petition and with the if irepeal of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, l96l, the revision stood abated, as the suit premises was not covered under the Z provisions of the Karnataka Rent Act, 199}. Accordingly, the appellant had preferred a civil suit seeking ejectment_..of the respondent. The same having been decreed in faynfii-...§,--fi"the appellant, the respondent had challenged the first appellate Court. The first appellatelfiioiuist has.ital:envVai1/iew that since the dismissal of thepejviction. petitionpoff app.eliantz had become final and with re_\v/ision-V. the dismissal ofthe evictioiifipetitisfiiiaviantgiiabated, will could not be preferred on._the required the premises the order as per the Rent Act p' 'i
4.' isiapplarently erroneous. The dismissal of theV_eviction" "pe,t_i__1_:_ion and the abatement of the revision ' pletitio12.,4:oif_''theappellant did not pose a bar for a suit for ejectment;'iiék§1ei:ch was a remedy available to the appellant on the repeal of':.196l Act.
IO
5. The View taken by the lower appellate Court that the dismissal of the eviction petition had attained finality and therefore, the suit could not be preferred on the same_.ground.uis opposed to law. In a suit for ejectment under i the Transfer of Property Act, there "is-rro ifequilirenientvto be it established unlike the provision sseieuoss2i(i)(h}ii'seine, notwithstanding that the appellantihad failed_to such all bona fide requirement under the of Rent Act, the suit for ejectruent was mai.n_ta_inable and l t'here'fore, the lower appellate Coinft notilcorlfelct iniholldilngotherwise.
" 4' oneess.othe1" nebulous contention taken by the respondent he1*ein..gto«...tihe effect that he has perfected his poss°essAison»st.Aby yiretuei of adverse possession against the ~"ll'l:.evlresp0ndent being admittedly the tenant, a claim for-.s_adv_er~seipossession, was untenable and ought to be rejected .at theioutset.
5 ll
7. Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed. The judgment of the lower appellate Court is set-aside in favour of the appellant in RSA No.2545/2006. In the result, tlftasult stands decreed in favour of the appellant. In view of p having been allowed, the cross-objections filed V. does not survive for considera»tion_;~tf5 A:;cord'ingl'y',_ '*'l:.'-file cross--objections are rejected '