Karnataka High Court
Smt Paravathi Bai vs Sri Vamalachand @ Vimal R. Khanter on 30 October, 2024
Author: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
Bench: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:43868
HRRP No. 12 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30THDAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
HOUSE RENT REV. PETITION NO. 12 OF 2022 (EVI)
BETWEEN:
SMT. PARVATHI BAI,
W/O. LATE. TAGRAJ JI,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
R/AT COMMERCIAL FLAT NO.11,
EXISTING IN APPAJAPPA SONS BUILDING,
NO.142/143,144/1 AND 144/2,
GROUND FLOOR,
BELLI BASAVANNA TEMPLE STREET,
MAMULPET, BANGALORE - 560 053.
...PETITIONER
(BY MS.SUSHMITHA S., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. VEDAVYASA BHAT H.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI. VAMALACHAND @ VIMAL R. KHANTER
Digitally signed by S/O, ROOPCHAND,
RAMYA D
Location: HIGH
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
R/AT NO.148, MAMULPET
BENGALURU - 560 053.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. GANGADHARA AITHAL S., ADVOCATE)
THIS HRRP FILED UNDER SECTION 46(1) OF KARNATAKA
RENT ACT AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 06.06.2022 PASSED IN
HRC No.78/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE CHIEF JUDGE, COURT OF
SMALL CAUSES AND MEMBER, PRINCIPAL M.A.C.T, BANGALORE,
ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 27(2) AND (r)
OF KARNATAKA RENT ACT.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:43868
HRRP No. 12 of 2022
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
ORAL ORDER
This Revision Petition is filed by the tenant - respondent (contending that the revision petitioner is not tenant) challenging the order dated 06.06.2022 passed in HRC No.78/2018 on the file of Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes and Member, Principal MACT, Bengaluru.
2. For the sake of convenience and easy reference, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court/HRC Court in original Proceedings.
3. Heard the arguments addressed by both the learned counsels appearing for the parties and perused the materials placed on record.
4. It is stated that the petitioner is owner of the petition schedule premises and respondent is a tenant under the petitioner. The petitioner - owner has purchased the property through a registered sale deed dated 16.11.1989 and the same was noticed by the respondent - tenant. It is -3- NC: 2024:KHC:43868 HRRP No. 12 of 2022 stated that the respondent - tenant has paid rent through cheques after purchase of the property in which the petition schedule premises is situated; khatha and other necessary entries were entered in the name of the petitioner - owner and the petitioner is paying taxes. The petitioner - owner issued legal notice to the respondent - tenant, but the respondent - tenant has not given a reply therefore, the petitioner - owner has filed petition under Section 27 (2) (a) and (r) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 praying for eviction of the respondent - tenant for bona fide requirement and non-payment of rent.
5. The respondent - tenant entered into appearance in the HRC proceedings and filed objection statement denying the petitioner is owner of the property. It is defence of the respondent - tenant that the original owner of the schedule property is one late Nanjunda Shetty, who has sold the schedule property to the respondent - tenant and her husband and he has received the entire sale consideration amount, but before execution of sale deed, he expired. Thus, in this way, the respondent - tenant has become -4- NC: 2024:KHC:43868 HRRP No. 12 of 2022 owner of the property. Therefore, prays to dismiss the revision petition.
6. The Trial Court has allowed the petition filed under Section 27 (2) (a) and (r) of the Karnataka Rent Act, on the reason that the respondent - tenant has not paid the rent amount and the petitioner - owner has needed the petition schedule premises for his bona fide requirement accordingly, directed the respondent - tenant to vacate and handover the possession of property to the petitioner - owner.
7. The respondent - tenant has preferred this revision petition on the ground that the petition is not maintainable as there is a bar to entertain the petition under Section 2 (f) of the Karnataka Rent Act. Further submitted that there is no rent agreement executed and the respondent is not tenant under the petitioner as the original owner, late Nanjunda Shetty, has sold the schedule property to the respondent and her husband in which the petition schedule premises situated; therefore, the respondent and her -5- NC: 2024:KHC:43868 HRRP No. 12 of 2022 husband have become owners of the property. Thus, prays to allow the petition.
8. The petitioner - owner has filed Ex.P-4 - certified copy of sale deed dated 16.11.1989, by which the petitioner has purchased the property in which the petition shop is situated. Exs.P-1 and P-2 are khatha certificate and khatha extract, in which after sale, as per Ex.P-4, the name of petitioner was mutated in the khatha certificate. Ex.P-3 is the tax paid receipt showing the name of the petitioner. Ex.P-5 are two cheques dated 04.09.1995 and 10.09.1995 issued by the respondent through the General Power of Attorney holder paying rent to the petitioner. All these documentary evidence proves the fact that the petitioner is the owner of the petition schedule property in which the petition shop is situated.
9. On the contrary, it is defence taken by the respondent - tenant that the respondent and her husband have purchased the petition schedule premises from the original owner late Nanjunda Shettty, and Nanjunda Shetty has received the entire sale consideration amount, but -6- NC: 2024:KHC:43868 HRRP No. 12 of 2022 before execution of sale deed, he expired. This is the defence taken by the respondent - tenant. The properties shall not be transferred without registration of sale deed. In the present case, as per admission made by the respondent
- tenant herself, there is no registration of the sale deed that the late Nanjunda Shetty has executed in favour of respondent - tenant and her husband. Therefore, even though the respondent - tenant has contended that the respondent is owner but there is no proof in this regard. Just by saying that late Nanjunda Shetty has received the sale consideration amount does not prove that the respondent - tenant has become owner of the property as per law. This is correctly observed by the Trial Court. The respondent was tenant under late Nanjunda Shetty and after purchasing the property by the petitioner through registered sale deed dated 16.11.1989 as per Ex.P-4, the respondent - tenant is notified and respondent agreed. Exs.P-5, P-6 and P-6(a) are the cheques issued by the respondent dated 07.05.1995, 04.09.1995 and 10.09.1995 that the respondent - tenant has paid rent amount to the petitioner - -7-
NC: 2024:KHC:43868 HRRP No. 12 of 2022 owner. Therefore, it is proved that the respondent is a tenant under the petitioner - owner. If the respondent has issued cheques in favour of petitioner for some other purpose not being rent, then it is burden on the respondent
- tenant to prove under what circumstances he has paid amount to the petitioner through cheques, but in this regard there is no proof by the respondent - tenant hence, it is proved that the respondent is a tenant under the petitioner - owner.
10. Therefore, it is proved that there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and respondent as discussed above. Therefore, the Trial Court has correctly appreciated evidence on record and allowed the petition, which needs no interference by this Court. Therefore, the revision petition filed by the respondent - tenant is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed.
SD/-
(HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE SRA, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17