Karnataka High Court
Sri Basavaraj S/O Chennappa vs Sri Puttaraju Since Deceased By His Lrs on 5 April, 2010
Equivalent citations: 2011 (1) AIR KAR R 223, AIR 2011 (NOC) (SUPP.) 922 (KAR.)
Author: Aravind Kumar
Bench: Aravind Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT 01? KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY or Apmli. '2:(§i'Q:..
BEFORE i x «
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE
H.l3.R.P 13:0. = " T%
BETWEEN: V A
SR1 BASAVARAJ
S/O CI-IENNAPPA $
AGED ABOUT-43 YEARS _ _
No.72, DASARAHALLI NAGARA SABHE * '
LAGGERE, YESI-IW'ANTH'PURA &1=:QBL;--.V_ .
BANGALoRE§eOR;r1«1TA1.,Ur;
BANGAL0R_£:.»a.56:) _(_)-.E_58= . PETITEONER
Adi.) V
AN 15%.;
1. »-
_ sINc1+:-.DI::c:+;As:«;~:> BY H15 LR'S
" P
A 13/0 13 PUTTARAJU
'<..AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS
« S1?.'..I 1\IIKIL KUMAR
. " 33/0 1-3 PUTTARAJU
= "AGED ABOUT 7 YEARS
.A _ SENCE 1{A) AND 1(B) ARE MINORS
V " REPRESENTED BY THEXR
NATURAL GUARDIAN/ MOTHER
2ND PETITEONER SMT. LAKSHMAMMA
2. SNfiTLAKSHNUUWhh%
\N/OIBPUTTARAJU
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
No.53, em CROSS
PARVATHINAGAR
LAGGERE MAIN ROAD J _
BANGALORE - 550 058 T "
. ..
[By Sri. KNPuttegowd'a_,:Adv.) A' T ' " 1
=+_v.rr
This HRRP filed"-un-deaf Saeistion of Karnataka Rent
Act, I'/W Section115 of 'Civi1'_PfroCeduife._ Code, against the
order dated 10.,11.20'O9;jpassjed on~,C£pplication in HRC
No.184/200-7; the _f1'1e'"'of 'the"~XI...Addl. Judge, Court of
Small Cau«se's, iB.a;ngal0;_re»,.._disrnissing the application filed
by the Respontlentl"thei*ein¢_,"U75 43 of KR Act.
his. 1 cQiiii.ng [on for orders this day, the
Court} .m'a,_de the .fo.l1"oWin,g 1,.
'fvbRDER
l thias revision petition, respondent is questioning
and legality of the order passed in HRC l\l(i;..184i:/'2;CAl'0;7 dated 10- 1 1-2009 on the file of the XI Addi. J1i_(ige;*Court of Small Causes, Bangalore. dv/.
2. The facts in nutshell are as follows:
Respondent herein initiated eviction -p'rocee=d4ings against the tenant in HRC 184/2007
(a) and [r] of the KarnatakaV.--Rentp Act, -'fit was contended in the eviction petition' property bearing No.72,"'s,ss€»ss1n"ent.' I Laggere village, Yeshwanth.ap'dra dldvieasuring east to West 30 North to schedule premises is, 2 dated 19-6-2006 from V":j'Si1hsequent to the purchase to their name and they have heen* paying " ' « '"
It i}irae.vV_f1'1r'ther contended subsequent to the *_purcnvase'g_the_ respondent was informed about the property and on the understanding that respondent has agreed to continue revision petitioner as a V' X_' * of the schedule premises whereunder it was agreed {hat respondent tenant would pay rent of Rs.300/~ per 4%_W, is serious dispute with regard to title of the property in question.
5. During the pendency of '4 application under Section fivtogtiael -: respondent tenant seekingllpior staydoll"
in HRC 184/2007. d In ..xapplieatlondBirespondent contended that tizgiilgbgolute owner of the property in qnestion,."""i'he": to be resisted by the ifiltnélldetailed statement of In respective elairnsparties have tendered tlleirrevidenee before the trial Court. On the ~' basis the' pleavdlilngs and evidence on record the Court following points for its consideration:
A ' .:Whether the respondent proves that their exist A dispute with regard to the relationship of landlord and tenant?
(ii) What order'?
7. On considering the pleadings, evidence onrecord and arguments advanced, the Court order dated 1041-2009 dismissed the application Section 43 of the Karnataka which has been questioned in the presevnt ifeifision petition.
8. I have heard iearned counsel for the petitionetand ieamed counsel for re5ponde1?1ts1[; 53. » ' , Learned counsel for the respondentdttenantigwoiild contend that there is no jural of'Ia,r_1diord and tenant between the petitioner ' and the J1-Lsfjondents inasmuch as no agreement came to be between the parties. At no point of time the it respgondent treated the petitioners as the Iandlord of it tVhde"-aprernises in question. She would contend that one Muniraju has admittedly filed a suit for specific $J'_,..
performance of saie and the same is pending adjudication and hence there is a cioud on the title to the" in question. She would also submit that there" is»no' agreement between the partiesiiarrd. it Transfer of Property Act is not the present case. She that isda tenant under has been paying rent to the at no point of time the rent paid to the'pre-sentmpetitioners. .,_S:i:.KLN.i.Puttegowda, learned counsel for the 1»ai;u::::i:Ii3rd'wou1d contend that order of Court 1:$'e.1'ow_ vvdoes: " suffer from any infirmities _ A wha:tso_ever. would submit that admittedly Mr.Anthony rRaj_w<as'.oth;Ve"vowner of the property in question and he hévingdd the same in favour of the petitioner under "registered sale deed dated 19-62006 is now it attiempting to wriggle out of the situation and has filed a false complaint and same is also countered by the ., 12 "7. In view of transfer of ownership of the premises to the respondent by the previo.tts.._ lessor, the respondent - becomes the becomes entitled to receive rent in terms the"
lease by operation of Section"1--09 f V It is relevant to state that in India' 7-1' of tenancy is necessary..'_in laixafi Sec::ti;o_nvllv_:ofVb the T.P. Act creates a tory V'atto'rnVrnelr:Et. The section does insist". the lessor's rights "stake if the tenant attorns. .V.Att07?t:r.,?l?t it tenant is unneceslslttnyf to:*co2'31fe'r the transfer of the "the section protects tenant to the transferor the' transfer. The transfer of otv.nership_ ofthe to the respondent by ._the preivioas lessor has resulted in statutory the tenant in favour of the les.sor'"sv __ transferee ie. the respondent herein and,,v_cofrIsequently jural relationship of landlord
8." In this context, it is also relevant to examine as to whether the right of the transferee under Section 09 of the T.P. Act is $5' 13 curtailed or modified by the Rent Act. The definition of 'landlord' under Section 3{e}_4 Rent/{ct reads as follows: S' S' S "Landlord" mean..s__a person.l'1%.;aho it the time being is receiving Aflorhisl en'titl'e'¢t___to:.;;vt_A' receive, the rent; of any Agl:iremise.s; .toheth;f2f~i on his own acco*untV--or on or on behalf of __or fori..thlév-be'nefitlofvanyi other person or_..l:i"as as; guardian or receiver for!' oftherll person or who soizreceiole 'thel--ren.t_£or to be entitled ihrentl if ._the' premises were let "a;7tejnaI1_t: "
to receive the rent' and 'to"rbe receive the 'rent' in the go' "aforesaidVdlefinition signfiy that the transfer of interest of the landlord in favour of any other _ not prohibited. Hence the right of the trai-is:-:,fezt*ee under Section 109 of the T .13. Act is not ctlrtailed/modified by the Rent Act. Thus a transferee of a lessor is entitled to collect rent in H terms of the lease as of right and becomes landlord under Section 3{e) of the Rent Act. The tenant cannot dispute the right of the transferee &/W 14 landlord to maintain an eviction petition under the Rent Act or to claim rent. Hence in of a valid transfer of the premises by by way of sale, question of referring" parties 3 namely the transferee of I-'tfie" «IeAssAor_;.and_ tenant to a Civil Court under Rent Act does not by learned Counselfor theTpetitioner'g_Vin BEGUM vs. lnotlj"applicabIe'Ato the facts of this case' {resent nature te., cases to whic'h'$ection."»iI T.P. Act is l, also in View of the fact that admitted that he was paying rent to Si'"i'*.i would not get better title than Whatfighle 'had t_h_e,earlier landlord namely Sri.Anthony ..i_V,e._..of Having admitted that he was a tenant Raj it was incumbent upon him to pay jgrentill The for specific performance, said to have been "against Anthony Raj would not curtail the right of present respondent in proceeding with the eviction ¢,,/ l5 proceedings. In View of the above, I am of the considered opinion that the respondent has utterly failed to that there is no jural relationship of landlord and accordingly point No.1 is answered jifaVjonr.i'ofl"thej' respondent herein.
15. Re:Point No.2: as in the case of Joseph _SCV\l H1411} relied upon by the learned C'lit1nSel.;'i--.:it:.is "to..lloe3v,.1"1otieed that in the said case he was a tenant in respect of? jlibrlernises therein. During the of tenancy an agreement of by the landlord owner in favoftar of tenantf respondent and thus tenant claimed that _les-..ser interest that of a "tenant" got extinguished and itAéblossoajed:ai=it'self into a larger interest namely that of a "purchaser". It was contended on this ground that he V' ceased to be a tenant. However, the Court beiow did not ' accept the said Contention and rejected the same which a/ 18 relied upon by the trial Court. Hence, the order of the Court below does not suffer from any infirmity Wthdtgsioever. I8. Re:Point No.3: In View of the foilowing order is passed.
The revision oiiinevrits and is accordingly dismissed; i ii 1 V % In View flrevisioni been dismissed Misc. 5649 consideration.
Sd/-= §UBG3E