Karnataka High Court
Smt B Laxmidevi S Rao vs Sri B R Prakash on 7 October, 2021
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
1 CRP NO.200 OF 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
CRP NO.200 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. B. LAXMIDEVI S. RAO
W/O LATE B.N. SRINIVAS RAO
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS
R/AT 1722, 41ST A CROSS
18TH MIN ROAD, OPP. KARUMARI TEMPLE
GRAPE GARDEN, 4TH 'T' BLOCK
JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560011
AND ALSO IN OCCUPATION OF
SHOP NO.1, OLD NO.650/1, NEW NO.1
10TH D MAIN, 4TH BLOCK
JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560011
2. MR. RAVINDRA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
S/O NARASIMHA BHATTA
SHOP NO.1, OLD NO.650/1, NEW NO.1
10TH D MAIN, 4TH BLOCK
JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560011
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. VEDA MURTHY.M.V, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. B.R. PRAKASH
S/O LATE B RAMA RAO
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
2 CRP NO.200 OF 2021
2. SMT. GEETHA PRAKASH
W/O SRI. B.R. PRAKASH
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
BOTH 1 & 2 ARE REPRESENTED
BY THEIR GPA HOLDER
SRI. AMITH PRAKASH
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
S/O SRI. B.R. PRAKASH
NO.1, 1ST MAIN ROAD, N.R. COLONY
BENGALURU-560 010
3. MR. AHMED ALIAS GANESHA
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
S/O UNKNOWN
SHOP NO.1 OLD NO.650/1 NEW NO.1
4TH BLOCK, 10TH D MAIN, JAYANAGAR
BENGALURU-560 011
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. C.V. SRINIVASA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2)
THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 18 OF THE
KARNATAKA SMALL CAUSES COURT ACT 1964, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT DATED 20.07.2021 PASSED IN SC.NO.584/2019 ON
THE FILE OF THE XXI ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE,
BENGALURU, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR EJECTMENT.
THIS CRP COMING ON FOR ORDERS AND HAVING BEEN
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 22.09.2021, THIS DAY, THE COURT
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. The Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:
"WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records from the Trial Court pertaining to S.C. No.584/2019 to examine the legality, validity and propriety of the judgment dated 20.07.2021 passed 3 CRP NO.200 OF 2021 by the XXI and XIX Addl. Small causes and Addl. MACT, Bangalore (SCCH-23) and set aside the same by allowing the Revision Petition. And grant such other reliefs as the Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case in the ends of justice."
2. S.C. No.584/2019 filed by the respondent herein before the XXI & XIX Addl. Small Causes and Addl. MACT (SCH-23) in respect of shop bearing No.1, which is part of Old No.650/1, New No.1, IV Block, 10th 'D' Main, Jayanagar, Bengaluru- 560 011 seeking for eviction of the Petitioner.
3. The Petitioner appeared before the trial Court and filed his written statement contending that there is no jural relationship between the petitioners and respondents No.2 and 3 to give a cause of action to institute the suit. In response to the legal notice dated 25.01.2019 issued by respondents No.1 and 2, the Petitioner had called upon respondents No.1 and 2 to furnish authenticated copies of the documents relied upon in the said legal notice. Instead of complying with the same, respondents No.1 and 2 4 CRP NO.200 OF 2021 advised the Petitioners to obtain the certified copies of the said documents. It is contended that there is no attornment of tenancy in any manner required. Though it is contended that respondents No.1 and 2 have become owners in the year 2005, they could not have issued the legal notice after 14 years, i.e. on 25.01.2019, and that Petitioners is in default of payment of rentals. It was further denied that the Petitioner had sub-let a portion of the shop on daily rental of Rs.300/- per day. It is contended that the Petitioner could not lead his evidence in the matter due to her ill health and for other reasons beyond her control.
4. Accepting the evidence, both oral and documentary produced by respondents No.1 and 2, the trial Court decreed the suit directing the Petitioner to handover the suit schedule property in favour of respondents No.1 and 2 within one month from the date of the order and as also make payment of arrears of rent of 5 CRP NO.200 OF 2021 Rs.5,400/-. Since defendant No.1 and 2 have no independent right, it was held that they had no right to squat over the suit schedule property and their tenancy was also duly terminated. The trial Court also directed an inquiry into mesne profits under Order 20 Rule 12 of CPC. It is aggrieved by the same that the Petitioner is before this Court.
5. Sri.B.V.Shankarnarayana Rao, learned counsel for the Petitioner, would contend that:
5.1. The trial Court has not considered the objection of the Petitioner herein that there was no jural relationship between the petitioner and respondents No.1 and 2 to give rise to a cause of action to institute the suit.
5.2. There is no attornment of tenancy, and that the legal notice issued after a period of 14 years from the date on which respondents No.1 and 2 became owners is not permissible.6 CRP NO.200 OF 2021
5.3. The trial court ought to have appreciated the comparative hardship inasmuch as the Petitioner if were to be evicted; the Petitioner would be thrown out of the premises causing tremendous inconvenience to the Petitioner and on this basis, he submits that the Judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is required to be set aside.
6. Per contra, Sri.C.V.Srinivas, who has entered an appearance for the respondents by filing caveat, has filed an objection to the petition, and relying on the same, he submits that:
6.1. The Judgment and decree impugned in the present proceedings is proper and correct and does not require any interference at the hands of this Court.
6.2. Vacant site bearing No.650 situated at IV block, 10th Main, Jayanagar, Bangalore had 7 CRP NO.200 OF 2021 been allotted to Sathyanarayana on 24.09.1959, who agreed to sell the same to Sri.G.S.Ramaswamy and had executed a sale deed on 22.04.1981 in favour of Sri.S.G.Ramaswamy who had constructed seven shops in the year 1973, which were assessed to municipal taxes which were paid by said G.S.Ramaswamy.
6.3. One B.N.Srinivas Rao had approached G.S.Ramaswamy to let out one shop on lease/rent for her business activities, and hence, G.S.Ramaswamy had executed an agreement in respect of shop No.1 out of the said seven shops. G.S.Ramaswamy expired on 11.06.1988, leaving behind nine legal heirs. Said B.N.Srinivas Rao became the tenant under the nine legal heirs of G.S.Ramaswamy. After the death of B.N.Srinivas Rao, his wife 8 CRP NO.200 OF 2021 Smt.B.Laxmidevi became a tenant under the plaintiffs.
6.4. Nine legal representatives of G.S.Ramaswamy sold the property in favour of B.R.Prakash, B.R.Krishna Prasad, Geetha Prakash, Smitha Krishna Prasad on 26.11.1992, and a notice came to be issued attorning the tenancy on 26.11.1992. Consequently, Smt.B.Laxmidevi became a tenant under the aforesaid persons who released their shares in favour of respondents No.1 and 2 through a registered release deed dated 19.04.2005. Consequently, the Petitioner became a tenant only under respondents No.1 and 2. The tenancy having already been attorned in favour of nine persons, a mere release would not amount to creating of a fresh tenancy inasmuch as it is by way of release complete rights in the property vested with respondents No.1 and 2. 9 CRP NO.200 OF 2021 6.5. Recognizing and said release of ownership in favour of respondents No.1 and 2, the Petitioner continued to make payment of rentals until the year 2001 when she became a defaulter, and she stopped making payment of the rentals despite making use of the aforesaid shop.
6.6. It is in this background that after persistent follow-up not yielding any result that the legal notice 25.01.2019 was issued, receipt of which is not disputed by the Petitioner.
6.7. By virtue of the said notice, tenancy came to be terminated, and as such, the Petitioner was bound to surrender the vacant physical possession of the scheduled premises on the forenoon of 14.02.2019, which not having been done S.C.No.584/2019 was filed which was contested by the Petitioner.
10 CRP NO.200 OF 20216.8. The Petitioner filed objections, contested the matter, cross-examined respondents No.1 and
2. Petitioner No.2 got himself examined as DW-1, produced documents, marked Exhibits- D1 to D3 and so also cross-examined. 6.9. The contention of the Petitioner is that there is no jural relationship between the Petitioner and respondents and the respondents are not the landlord of the Petitioner and as such, on this short ground, the petition is required to be allowed and the eviction proceedings before the trial Court be dismissed.
6.10. The trial Court has appreciated all evidence which have been produced by respondents No.1 and 2 in a proper and correct perspective. The tenancy having been admitted and rentals having been paid, the Petitioner has taken a dishonest stand that Respondents No.1 and 2 11 CRP NO.200 OF 2021 are not the owners of the property, and a tenant cannot be heard or allowed to take up such a contention.
6.11. All the above facts establish that the Petitioner-tenant is seeking to abuse the process of this Court and therefore, there is no equitable consideration required to be given to the Petitioner and this Court ought to dismiss the above petition there being no ground which has been made out in the said matter. 6.12. In this regard, Sri.C.V.Srinivasa, learned counsel for the Petitioner, relies upon the following decisions:
6.13. Debasish Sinha -v- Sreejib Sinha & others- [Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.4148/2020, more particularly the observations in paragraph 2 is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:12 CRP NO.200 OF 2021
"2. We are not satisfied with merely dismissing the special leave petition as some signal must be sent to discourage this nature of litigation. We , thus while dismissing the SLP impose the following directions :
1) The execution be satisfied within a period of 15 days from this order being placed before the trial Court.
2) Damages be computed by the executing Court at the market rates against the Petitioner from the date of filing the objection i.e. 26.03.2010 till possession is taken and this process be completed within a period of three months.
3) The Petitioner for wastage of judicial time and for dragging on the proceedings be burdened with costs of Rs. 1 lakh to be paid to the respondent within the same period of three months.
The special leave petition is dismissed in terms aforesaid."
6.14. The decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 7988/2004 between M/s Atma Ram Properties -v- Federal Motors Pvt. Ltd., wherein it has been held thus:
"Ordinarily this Court does not interfere with discretionary orders, more so when they are of interim nature, passed by the High Court or subordinate Courts/Tribunals. However, this appeal raises an issue of frequent recurrence and, therefore, we have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. Landlord-tenant litigation constitutes a large chunk of litigation pending in the Courts and 13 CRP NO.200 OF 2021 Tribunals. The litigation goes on for unreasonable length of time and the tenants in possession of the premises do not miss any opportunity of filing appeals or revisions so long as they can thereby afford to perpetuate the life of litigation and continue in occupation of the premises. If the plea raised by the learned senior counsel for the respondent was to be accepted, the tenant, in spite of having lost at the end, does not loose anything and rather stands to gain as he has enjoyed the use and occupation of the premises, earned as well a lot from the premises if they are non-residential in nature and all that he is held liable to pay is damages for use and occupation at the same rate at which he would have paid even otherwise by way of rent and a little amount of costs which is generally insignificant."
6.15. The decision of the Apex Court in the case of Anar Devi (Smt.) -v- Nathu Ram [(1994) 4 SCC 250] more particularly paragraph 13 thereof which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference :
"13. This Court in Sri Rain Pasricha v. Jagannath AIR (1976) SC 2355, has also ruled that in a suit for eviction by landlord, the tenant is estopped from questioning the title of the landlord because of Section 116 of the Act. The Judicial Committee in Kumar Krishna Prasad Lal Singha Deo v. Baraboni Coal Concern Ltd3, when had occasion to examine the contention based oil the words 'at the beginning of the tenancy' 14 CRP NO.200 OF 2021 in Section 1 16 of the Evidence Act, pronounced that they do not give a round for a person already in possession of land becoming tenant of another, to contend that there is no estoppel against his denying his subsequent lessor's title. Ever since, the accepted position is that Section 116 of the Evidence Act applies and estops even a person already in possession as tenant under one landlord from denying the title of his subsequent landlord when once he acknowledges him as his landlord by attornment or conduct. Therefore, a tenant of immovable property under landlord who becomes a tenant under another landlord by accepting him to be the owner who had derived title from the former landlord, cannot be permitted to deny the latter's title, even when he is sought to be evicted by the latter on a permitted ground."
6.16. On the above grounds, he submits that the Civil Revision Petition is required to be dismissed.
7. At this stage, Sri.B.V.Shankarnarayana Rao, learned counsel for the Petitioner, submits that if an adequate time period is granted to the Petitioner, the Petitioner would vacate the premises. He submits that the Petitioner has been in possession for more 15 CRP NO.200 OF 2021 than 40 years, and therefore, he seeks three years time to vacate the premises.
8. Sri.C.V.Srinivass, learned counsel for the Respondents, would submit that:
8.1. The Petitioner has acted in a malafide manner, and that the Petitioner has even questioned the ownership of the Respondents.
8.2. The Petitioner has continued to delay the proceedings on one ground or the other. The delay being occasioned by the Petitioner only to gain the benefit of retention of the premises, the relationship between the Petitioner and Respondents have become very strained, there is no trust between the parties.
Respondents No.1 and 2 owners do not wish to grant any further extension of time, and as such, on instructions, he submits that this Court may proceed to pass necessary orders. 16 CRP NO.200 OF 2021
9. Heard Sri.Shankaranarayana Rao.B.V, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Sri.C.V.Srinivasa, learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2. Perused papers.
10. A short question that arises for consideration of this Court is, whether the Petitioner has made out any case for interference with the reasoned order passed by a trial Court in S.C.No.584/2019 dated 20.07.2021?
11. A perusal of the records indicates that the Petitioner had sought for adjournment after adjournment of the proceedings including for the amicable resolution of the matter, thereby indicating that the Petitioner himself had recognized the respondents as owners of the property and was seeking to negotiate that they would arrive at an amicable resolution of the matter, thereby indicating that the Petitioner himself had recognized the respondents as the owners of the 17 CRP NO.200 OF 2021 property and was seeking to negotiate that they would arrive at an amicable resolution.
12. It is in the above background, the contention of the Petitioner cannot now be accepted that respondents No.1 and 2 are not the owners of the property and or that there is no jural relationship between the petitioner and respondents No.1 and 2. The letter of attornment which was objected to be marked and subsequently which came to be marked as Ex.P50 would also establish such an attornment, and now the tenant cannot contend that owner is not the owner and that there is no jural relationship. This kind of contention is completely malafide and so taken up only for the purpose of delaying the matter and for no further reason.
13. The tenant who took dishonest stand even denying the ownership of the landlord is not entitled to any equitable consideration. The proceedings have been protracted by the Petitioner for a quite long time by 18 CRP NO.200 OF 2021 taking false contentions. In the other connected matter CRP No.201/2021, these aspects have been dealt with.
14. In view of the same, I find no reason to interfere with the well-reasoned order passed by the trial Court, the above Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, time period of one month granted by the trial Court to vacate the premises is extended by another period of one month from today, the order having been pronounced in the presence of the counsel for Petitioner, the period of 30 days would commence from today.
15. The Petitioner is directed to hand over the vacant possession of the subject premises by 7.11.2021...
16. As directed by the trial Court, an inquiry into mesne profits shall be held in accordance with law.
17. There being completely malafide stand taken and false submissions having been made on facts, costs 19 CRP NO.200 OF 2021 of Rs. 10,000/- is imposed on the Petitioner to be paid to the Respondents within 15 days from today, i.e., on or before 21.10.2021.
18. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE ln