Karnataka High Court
Mr G Rafi vs Mrs Walaja Shaheen Banu on 19 October, 2012
Author: N.Ananda
Bench: N. Ananda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED: THIS THE 19th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANANDA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 391/2012 (SC)
BETWEEN:
Mr. G. Rafi,
Aged about 60 years,
S/o G. Abdul Gani,
Carrying on Business at
Shop No.2, NO. 177/2,
Kumbarpet Main Road,
Bangalore-560 002.
Also at Bharath Traders,
No.20/1, SJP Road,
Bangalore-02. ... PETITIONER
(By Sri K.R. Ashok Kumar, Adv.)
AND:
1. Mrs. Walaja Shaheen Banu,
Aged about 36 years,
W/o Sri Zubair Ahmed,
2. Mrs. Walaja Khatija Banu,
Aged about 34 years,
W/o Sri B.G. Abdul Gafoor,
2
3. Mrs. Walaja Yasmeen Banu,
Aged about 32 years,
W/o M. Mehtab Hussain,
4. Mrs. Walaja Sumaya Banu,
Aged about 27 years,
W/o Md. Ameen. ... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri. Shams Ahmed Patham, Adv. for R-1 to 4)
...
This Civil Revision Petition is filed under
Section 18 of the Karnataka Small Cause Courts Act
against the judgment and decree dated 20.6.2012
passed in S.C.No. 15607/2011 on the file of the V
Additional Small Causes Judge, Court of Small
Causes, Bangalore, partly decreeing the suit for
ejectment and damages.
This CRP coming on for Admission this day,
the Court made the following:
ORDER
Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
2. The relationship of landlady and tenant has not been disputed. The Trial Court has recorded a 3 finding that respondents have proved jural relationship of landlord and tenant.
3. The arrears of rent paid by petitioner would prove that he has admitted relationship of landlord and tenant. The tenant has denied the execution of deed of confirmation of the gift in favour of the landladies. During subsistence of tenancy, the tenant cannot dispute the title of landlord. Even otherwise, the father of landladies, who was the original owner, had gifted properties to his own daughters. Therefore, the deed of confirmation of the gift (inam) cannot be suspected. In the circumstances, the learned Trial Judge was justified in holding that petitioner is a tenant under the respondents. As regards rate of rent, there is no controversy. The petitioner has deposited a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards arrears of rent with this Court. 4
4. The tenancy has been terminated by issuance of notice.
5. The learned Counsel for respondents submits that from the inception the rate of rent has been a sum of Rs.350/- per month. The learned Trial Judge has determined damages at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per month payable from the date of suit till the delivery of possession. It is seen from the impugned order, the Trial Judge has determined the damages taking into consideration natural hike in market rate of rent. It appears that there is no satisfactory evidence in proof of this. But that cannot be a ground to set aside the impugned order of eviction. Therefore, I pass the following:
ORDER
a) The impugned order of eviction is confirmed;
b) The matter is remitted to the Trial Court for limited purpose of determination of damages 5 payable from date of the suit till date of delivery of possession.
c) Both the parties are at liberty to adduce further evidence only regarding quantification of damages.
d) The learned Trial Judge shall also determine the advance, if any, paid by tenant to landladies;
e) This order of remand will not come in the way of the respondents/landladies to execute the impugned decree of eviction;
f) The arrears of rent deposited with this Court shall be paid to landladies;
g) The petitioner is granted two months time from the date of the order to vacate and deliver vacant possession of schedule 6 premises to respondents/landladies, failing which the respondents-landladies can execute the impugned decree of eviction.
Sd/-
Judge Nsu/-