Bangalore District Court
Sri.S.Vasudeva Murthy vs Sri.Rajannachari on 23 February, 2015
IN THE COURT OF THE XV ADDL.JUDGE:
Court of Small Causes, Mayohall Unit, Bangalore.
(SCCH.19)
Present: Smt.C.G.Vishalakshi, B.A.L., LL.B.,
XV Addl. Judge
Dated this the 23rd day of February 2015
HRC.No.10059/2010
Petitioner: Sri.S.Vasudeva Murthy,
S/o.Late.N.V.Sheshappa,
Aged about 49 years, No.12, "HONGEERANA",
6th Cross, 7th Main, Rajeeva Nagara,
Padmanabhanagara, B'lore-85.
(By Sri.K.S.N., Advocate)
-Vs-
Respondent: Sri.Rajannachari,
IInd Floor, No.1/2, Mallikajunappa,
Lane, Avenue Road Cross,
Bangalore-2.
(By Sri.K.N.D., Advocate)
JUDGMENT
The Petitioner filed this petition U/s.27(2) (r) of Karnataka Rent Control Act 1999 against the Respondent with prayer to evict the Respondent directing him to quit and deliver the vacant possession of the petition schedule property and for other reliefs as this court deems fit in the interest of justice and equity.
2. The brief facts of the petitioner's case is as under:
2 SCCH-19 HRC.No.10059/2011 The Petitioner claims that he has acquired the ownership in respect to the property bearing No. Old No.75 and New No.1/2, measuring East to West 23 plus 25/2 feet and North to South 11.75 feet comprising of ground floor, 1st Floor and II nd Floor suitated at Mallikarjunappa Lane, Sanjeevappa Lane Avenue Road Cross, Bangalore-2 through court auction under sale seed dated 30.08.2007 and sale certificate dated 06.02.2010. It is further averred that after acquiring the premises, he has filed an Execution Petition in Ex.No.15125/2005 on the file of 24th Addl. City Civil Judge, Mayo Hall, Bangalore (CCH 20) and obtained the symbolic possession of the said property. It is further case of the Petitioner that the Respondent was in occupation as tenant in respect to the petition schedule property has became the tenant under the Petitioner as he clearly admitted that he is in occupation of the petition schedule property as tenant on monthly rentals of Rs.600/- per month. The tenancy is month to month tenancy commencing on his first day of each Calendar Month. It is further case of the Petitioner that the Respondent has not cared to pay the monthly rentals, inspite of the execution petition and inspite of several request and demand. Hence, the Petitioner issued legal notice against the Respondent on 12.01.2010 calling him to quit and deliver the vacant possession of the petition schedule property. Insipte of service of notice, the Defendant did not complied with 3 SCCH-19 HRC.No.10059/2011 the demands of notice nor gave any reply. Further it is the case of the Petitioner that the petition schedule property is residential one and occupied by the Respondent and Petitioner, who is a Mechanical Engineer on his business running Murthy Scooter Care for the purpose of two wheelers and he desires to occupy the petition schedule property along with other two premises in occupation of the other two tenants by converting the said residential premises to non residential premises for his reasonable and bonafide requirement. Hence, he has appraised his bonafide needs and desire requesting him to vacate the petition schedule property, but he has not bothered to pay the monthly rentals nor vacated the petition schedule property. Hence, having no other go, he has approached this court seeking eviction of the Respondent from the petition schedule property stating that cause of action arose for the petition on 01.02.2010, when the tenancy of the Respondent has been determined on the expiry of 31.01.2010 and subsequently within the jurisdiction of this court.
3. In response to the notice issued by this court, the Respondent appeared before this court through his counsel and filed his objections denying the claim of the Petitioner as false. Further contended that the provisions invoked by the Petitioner U/s.27(2)(r) of Karnataka Rent Control Act is already been repealed and Karnataka Rent Act 1999 came into force.
4 SCCH-19 HRC.No.10059/2011 Further contended that there is no existence of jural relationship of landlord and tenant in between Petitioner and himself and as such the petition is liable to be dismissed. Further he has denied the claim of the Petitioner with respect to the acquisition of the property under registered sale deed under court auction as false and contended that the Petitioner has acquired the ownership and right of premises under the registered sale deed dated 30.08.2007 only in collusion of the owner of the schedule building of B.T.Lakshmikantha with fraudulent intentions to cheat him. Hence, the said sale deed is not binding on him and the said sale deed is just to defeat the rights of him.
4. Further taken up the contention that he came to know all these aspects only after receipts of suit summons and at no point of time, the Respondent occupied the petition schedule premises as tenant thereof. On the other hand, he is in occupation of the petition schedule premises by constructing the second floor on his own as there was no 2nd floor to the said building and it was permitted the Respondent to put up construction of 2nd floor as it was orally agreed to sell the petition schedule property by the said B.T.Lakshmikantha. Hence, contended that he is in occupation of schedule premises not as tenant thereof, but on his independent capacity. Hence, contended that there is no jural relationship of landlord and tenant and at no 5 SCCH-19 HRC.No.10059/2011 point of time neither received the rent at the rate of Rs.600/- per month nor he paid any such rents to the Petitioner. Further contended that the he never admitted that he is in petition schedule premises as tenant by paying rentals and it is misleading and misrepresenting. Further though admitted about the issuance of notice by the Petitioner on 12.01.2010 calling upon him to quit and deliver the vacant possession of the petition schedule property, but contended that the Petitioner and B.T.Lakshmikantha have played fraud on him. After receipt of the said notice, he had approached B.T.Lakshmikantha asking him about these aspects, but the said B.T.Lakshmikantha took the notice stating that they would set right the matter and he came to know of filing of this suit only after the receipt of court notice with the said B.T.Lakshmikantha has in collusion with the Petitioner has played fraud on him. Thus contended that there is no jural relationship of landlord and tenant in between himself and the Petitioner. On the other hand the Petitioner it totally stranger to him. Hence, the question of demanding him to pay the rents does not arise. Further taken up the his defence that one B.T.Lakshmikantha was the absolute owner property bearing No. Old No.75 and New No.1/2, consisting of ground floor, first floor and second floor (constructed by him) situated at Sanjeevappa Lane, Mallikarjunappa Galli, Avenue Road Cross, Bangalore-2. The said B.T.Lakshmikantha had raised 6 SCCH-19 HRC.No.10059/2011 loan from Sri.Subramanyeshwara Co.Operative Bank Limited by mortgaging the entire above property. The said B.T.Lakshmikantha had not repaid the said loan amount. The said property was brought for public auction, on that time, the said B.T.Lakshmikantha was introduced through brokers namely Hemanth and Gante YaduKumar and it was orally agreed between him and the said B.T.Lakshmikantha to the Respondent along with his mother Komaladevi that B.T.Lakshmikantha intend to sell the petition schedule property entire property in his favour for valuable consideration of Rs.8,20,000/-. The said B.T.Lakshmikantha along with the said brokers and his mother made him to give Rs.6,50,000/- to the said B.T.Lakshmikantha. When the bank had brought entire property for public auction, they all made him to pay a sum of Rs.75,000/- towards the part performance of the oral agreement of sale and that was the reason, when the property was brought to the auction, the said B.T.Lakshmikantha entered into oral sale agreement.
Further it is averred that it was orally agreed that the Respondent should put up the construction of the 2nd floor i.e., the schedule premises and to occupy the same and that the amount spent to the construction of the schedule premises shall be adjusted in the total sale consideration. Accordingly he has constructed the 2nd floor and has been in possession of the said property towards part performance of the oral agreement of sale.
7 SCCH-19 HRC.No.10059/2011 Hence, contended that he had paid directly paid to the bank of Rs.15,000/- on 08.02.2003 and Rs.60,000/- on 10.02.2003 and thereafter he paid Rs.1,00,000/- by cash to the said B.T.Lakshmikantha through the Gante Yadu Kumar in presence of Hemanth on 30.03.2003 and thereafter he paid Rs.2,00,000/- on 28.04.2003 and Rs.3,00,000/- during the October 2003. Further as he put up construction of 2nd floor i.e., schedule premises balance amount of Rs.1,45,000/- is adjusted towards the construction work. Hence, B.T.Lakshmikanth had to return the balance of Rs.1,55,000/- towards extra expenditure incurred by him, which would be more than the agreed amount of sale consideration. The said B.T.Lakshmikantha instead of executing the registered absolute sale deed, went on postponing to execute the registered sale deed with respect to the ground floor, first floor and the second floor of the property. On the other hand, he has received court notice in the above case claiming that the Petitioner is the owner of the petition schedule premises along with ground floor, but it is absolutely false. Hence, contended that all the above persons including the Petitioner in collusion with the between B.T.Lakshmikantha played fraud on him without executing sale deed in his favour. Hence, contended that he has been in possession of the petition schedule premises towards part performance of oral sale agreement in between the Respondent and the owner of the property and he 8 SCCH-19 HRC.No.10059/2011 is residing in the said property along with his family in his own capacity and he is not tenant under the Petitioner is not landlord in respect to the petition schedule property. Hence, there is no relationship of the landlord and the tenant therein. Hence, with all other contention, he prays for dismissal of the petition.
5. During the pendency of the petition, the Respondent has filed objection U/s.43 of Karnataka Rent Act, but he only has filed memo to consider the said petition along with main matter. Hence, this case is posted for evidence of the Petitioner and Respondent.
6. This case and another HRC.No.10060/2010 clubbed with HRC No.10058/2010 vide order dated 18.7.2011 in HRC.No.10058/2010 and evidence was ordered to be recorded in HRC.No.10058/2010. Thus the Petitioner in HRC.No.10058/2010 has been examined therein as PW.1 and got marked documents like Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.13 documents produced by the Petitioner in HRC.No.10060/2010 i.e., copy of legal notice, receipts and postal acknowledgment for having served notice, which are marked at Ex.P.14 to 16 and documents of HRC.No.10059/2010 i.e., copy of legal notice, postal receipts and postal acknowledgment, which are marked at Ex.P.17 to 19 and Petitioner of this HRC Petition No.10059/2010 has been examined as PW.2. and marked document like Ex.P.20 and Ex.P.21 to 9 SCCH-19 HRC.No.10059/2011 Ex.P.29. Since, the matter was compromised in HRC.No.10058/2010, this court was posted this case for further evidence of PW.2 and for next further stage of cross-examination of PW.1 and for Respondent evidence. After completion of the evidence by both parties in this case the matter posted for arguments.
7. Heard arguments and perused the entire records.
8. In the light of the above following points arise for my consideration:
1. Whether the Petitioner has made out the ground to consider his prayer that he requires the petition schedule premises for her bonafide use and occupation?
2. Whether Petitioner is entitled for possession of the property?
3. What order?
9. My answer on the above points are :
Point No.1: In the Affirmative Point No.2: In the Affirmative Point No.3: As per final order, for the following :
REASONS
10. Point No.1:- On reading the entire materials on record, it shows that the Petitioner maintained this petition for ejectment of the Respondent from the petition schedule property claiming that he is the absolute owner and landlord having acquired the same through court auction under registered sale deed dated 30.08.2007 and sale certificate dated 10 SCCH-19 HRC.No.10059/2011 06.02.2010 and thereafter he got obtained symbolic possession of petition schedule property by filing execution petition No.15125/2005. The Respondent had agreed that he has been in possession of petition schedule property as tenant on monthly rentals of Rs.600/- per month. As the Respondent is chronic defaulter in paying rents and as the Petitioner intend to convert the petition schedule property and other two premises in occupation of other two tenants by converting the residential premises to the non residential premises for his occupation reasonably and bonafide to the satisfaction of his need after securing the schedule property as he finds no any financial difficulties to use for running and continuing his business, he approached the Respondent by explaining his needs and requested him to quit and deliver the vacant possession of the petition schedule property. As the Respondent not bothered to pay monthly rentals nor vacated the petition schedule premises, the Petitioner constraint to file this petition for eviction of the Respondent and other two tenants from the petition schedule property and other two premises.
11. Per contra on reading the defence set out by the Respondent, he not only denied the claim of the Petitioner, but also the very jural relationship of the landlord and tenant in between not only himself, but also under the previous owner B.T.Lakshmikantha taking the contention that he 11 SCCH-19 HRC.No.10059/2011 has been in possession of petition schedule property on his own right as part performance contending that original owner B.T.Lakshmikantha had raised loan at Sri.Subramanyeshwara Co.Operative Bank Limited by mortgaging the entire schedule building and as he did not paid the loan amount, the bank has brought the entire property of public auction and on that time the said B.T.Lakshmikantha was introduced to the Respondent through brokers namely Hemanth and Gante YaduKumar and on that time, the B.T.Lakshmikantha had agreed to sell the entire schedule building in favour of the Respondent for sale consideration of Rs.6,50,000/- and as such he paid advance amount to the said B.T.Lakshmikantha and paid Rs.75,000/-, when the property was brought for public auction and towards part sale consideration and as per the oral agreement, he had constructed the 2nd floor in the schedule building as it was agreed that the cost of construction should be adjusted in the total sale consideration. Hence, it is the contention of the Respondent that he had paid a sum of Rs.15,000/- on 08.02.2003, Rs.60,000/- on 10.02.2003 to the bank and paid Rs.1,00,000/- in cash to the B.T.Lakshmikantha through brokers Gante Yadu Kumar on 30.03.2003 and Rs.2,00,000/- on 28.04.2003 and Rs.3,00,000/- by cash during October 2003 under cost of construction was Rs.1,45,000/- and it was adjusted towards construction work. Thus the Respondent had incurred more than 12 SCCH-19 HRC.No.10059/2011 Rs.3,00,000/- for construction and it is the B.T.Lakshmikantha only had to return the balance amount of Rs.1,55,000/-. Hence, it is the contention of the Respondent that he has been residing in the petition schedule property towards part performance of specific performance of contract. Thus he denied the very jural relationship of landlord and tenant not only in between himself and the Petitioner, but also himself and the alleged previous owner B.T.Lakshmikantha.
12. In view of this denial, burden is on the Petitioner to prove that there exist jural relationship of landlord and tenant between himself and the Respondent and Respondent is tenant in respect to the petition schedule property.
13. This case and another HRC.No.10060/2010 clubbed with HRC No.10058/2010 vide order dated 18.7.2011 in HRC.No.10058/2010 and evidence was ordered to be recorded in HRC.No.10058/2010. Thus the Petitioner in HRC.No.10058/2010 has been examined therein as PW.1 and got marked documents like Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.13 documents produced by the Petitioner in HRC.No.10060/2010 i.e., copy of legal notice, receipts and postal acknowledgment for having served notice, which are marked at Ex.P.14 to 16 and documents of HRC.No.10059/2010 i.e., copy of legal notice, postal receipts and postal acknowledgment, which are marked at 13 SCCH-19 HRC.No.10059/2011 Ex.P.17 to 19 and Petitioner of this HRC Petition No.10059/2010 has been examined as PW.2. and marked document like Ex.P.20 and Ex.P.21 to Ex.P.29. Since, the matter was compromised in HRC.No.10058/2010, this court was posted this case for further evidence of PW.2 and for next further stage of cross-examination of PW.1 and for Respondent evidence. After completion of the evidence by both parties in this case the matter posted for arguments and then after hearing the arguments, posted for Judgment.
14. To substantiate the fact that Respondent is tenant under him in respect to the petition schedule property and there exist jural relationship of landlord and tenant between himself and the Respondent, the Petitioner attempted to elicit some evidence during the course of RW.1 and suggested that Respondent had appeared in the execution petition No.15125/2005, on receipt of notice in the said execution petition and he only had taken the said notice of execution petition as per the Ex.P.9 by signing the same. Thus the Respondent had aware about purchase of the property by the Petitioner through court auction and followed by sale certificate from the said B.T.Lakshmikantha, as he had not paid the decretal amount, which was due to the Petitioner from the said B.T.Lakshmikantha. Though Respondent i.e., RW.1 denied the said suggestion as false by reiterating that he is in possession of the petition schedule property as rightful owner by purchasing 14 SCCH-19 HRC.No.10059/2011 the same through its original owner B.T.Lakshmikantha. But to substantiate the fact that the Respondent was tenant under B.T.Lakshmikantha and he had obstructed him for delivery warrant along with other objectors namely S.Shankar and Aswathchari, the Petitioner relied on documents like execution proceedings in Execution Petition No.15125/05 and got produced document like Ex.P.27 i.e., Certified Copy of Order Sheet of execution No.15125/2005. On perusal of the said document, it shows that the decree holder i.e., Petitioner herein had filed the said execution petition against the judgment debtor B.T.Lakshmikantha against whom the Petitioner herein had filed suit for recovery of sum of Rs.1,35,700/- with cost and current interest at the rate of 18% p.a., in O.S.No.16595/2002 on the file of City Civil Court and secured Judgment and Decree in his favour. In pursuance of the Judgment and Decree he had filed execution proceedings for recovery of the said decretal amount in the execution proceedings. The decree holder got obtained attachment of sale of the petition schedule building and subsequently the Hon'ble Court was pleased to pass an order for public auction of the entire petition schedule building and decree holder had auctioned the property for Rs.6,50,000/- and sale certificate was issued in favour of the decree holder i.e., Petitioner herein.
15 SCCH-19 HRC.No.10059/2011
15. Thereafter the decree holder filed I.A.No.7 U/o.26 Rule.96 R/w.Sec.151 of CPC as per the Ex.P.8 with prayer to issuance of delivery warrant against the alleged tenants namely Ashwathachari, S.Shankar and C.S.Rajannachari. The notice on I.A.No.7 was issued against all the above said tenants with respect to the execution schedule premises and the said notice was duly served on the tenants namely Ashwathachari and his brother, S.Shankar and C.S.Rajannachari i.e., Respondent herein as per the Ex.P.29 document. The said Ex.P.29 notice clearly reflects about the due service of notice against the said C.S.Rajannachari i.e., Respondent herein on 15.07.2008 as per the Ex.P.29(a) along with other tenants Ashwathachari and S.Shankar and it is reported and made note of the in the order sheet of execution petition dated 02.08.2008. In response to the said notice, the said tenants including Respondent herein appeared before the court and prays time to file objections to the I.A.No.7. Thereafter one of the tenant Ashwath appointed his advocate and filed objections to I.A.No.7. On 20.09.2008 another objector No.1 personally filed objections to I.A.No.7. The tenant No.3 i.e., R.3/Objector No.3 i.e., Respondent herein, though duly appeared in the said execution proceedings on all dates, but not filed his objections to the I.A.No.7 by objecting for issuance of delivery warrant by taking any such defence as he has taken before this court in this petition contending that 16 SCCH-19 HRC.No.10059/2011 he was not residing in the execution schedule property i.e., petition schedule property as tenant, but as agreement holder towards part performance of alleged sale agreement by narrating the fact of alleged circumstances of the alleged oral sale agreement by original owner i.e., judgment debtor in the said execution petition namely B.T.Lakshmikantha in his favour and about receipt of sale consideration and payments made by him towards sale consideration on different dates and about fraud played by the judgment debtor in collusion with the other persons namely Hemanth Kumar and Gante Yadu Kumar and also by the Petitioner. On the other hand, he allowed i.e., Respondent herein allowed the executing court to issue delivery warrant against them by narrating their status including the status of Respondent herein as tenant along with the other objectors. This create doubt in respect to the defence taken by the Respondent that he has been in possession of petition schedule property towards part performance in pursuance of alleged oral agreement in between himself and the said B.T.Lakshmikantha and not as tenant.
16. If really he was not a tenant in respect to the execution schedule property, on the other hand, he was residing therein in his own right as agreement holder i.e., towards part performance, he definitely would have taken such defence in the execution proceedings itself by filing necessary 17 SCCH-19 HRC.No.10059/2011 objections objecting for issuance of delivery warrant against them by narrating his status as tenant. But no such attempt has been made by the Respondent, on the other hand, he remained silent without filing any such objection. This clearly goes to show that though he is residing in the disputed property as tenant only, but inspite of the same, just to over come to situation of ejectment he has taken vague defence that he never received any such notice in the execution proceedings and he never appeared in the execution proceedings. On the other hand, he came to know about the fact of alleged purchase of the property by the Petitioner only, after receipt of the notice of this HRC Petition and he is residing in the petition schedule property not as tenant, but as agreement holder i.e., on his own right etc.
17. Further the Hon'ble Judge was pleased to pass delivery warrant against the objectors by narrating their status as tenant including the status of this Respondent as tenant only. If Respondent was not tenant in respect to the petition schedule property, on the other hand he has been residing therein in his independent right, then definitely he would have question the said order passed in execution proceedings, but he did not made any attempt in that regard also. On the other hand another objector Ashwathachari had challenged the said order of issuance of delivery warrant in W.P.13679 with prayer to quash the orders of execution court dated 25.10.2007. In the said 18 SCCH-19 HRC.No.10059/2011 writ petition their lordship by explaining the status of so called objectors including the Respondent herein as tenants only and were pleased to pass an order for symbolic possession of building in favour of the decree holder without distributing the possession of tenants in occupation, by giving liberty to the decree holder i.e., Petitioner herein to file separate suit against them. This also clearly goes to show that Respondent is tenant in respect to the petition schedule property. In pursuance of the orders, the Petitioner maintained this eviction petition against the Respondent asserting that he is the tenant under him also by virtue of purchase of the property from the said B.T.Lakshmikantha.
18. No doubt the Petitioner not placed any documents before this court to show that the Respondent is tenant under him by placing any rental receipts or any such documents. But the documents placed by the Petitioner i.e., document of execution proceedings and documents relating to the writ petition itself clearly testifies the fact that the Respondent is tenant in respect to the petition schedule property.
19. Further though Respondent has produced documents like Ex.R.1 & 2 receipts to show that he has paid Rs.75,000/- to the Sri.Subramanyeshwara Co.Operative Bank Limited towards loan raised by the B.T.Lakshmikantha etc., but the said receipts reflects that it was paid to 19 SCCH-19 HRC.No.10059/2011 the account of Niharika Silk House and there is no mentioning of the words that it was paid loan account of B.T.Lakshmikantha. Further Respondent not placed any evidence to show that the B.T.Lakshmikantha had raised alleged loan in the name of Niharika Silk House. Even otherwise those documents does not suffice to come to conclusion that there was oral agreement in between the Respondent and original owner B.T.Lakshmikantha under which B.T.Lakshmikantha had agreed to sell petition schedule property along with his mother Komaladevi for sale consideration of Rs.8,20,000/- and Respondent has paid amount on different dates to the said B.T.Lakshmikantha towards sale consideration. Further he has not examined any such persons like Gunte Yadu Kumar or Hemanth before this court to prove the fact of alleged oral agreement in between himself and the said B.T.Lakshmikantha.
20. Further though Respondent has taken the defence that he only had constructed the 2nd floor as per the conditions of agreement etc., but he only has not produced any materials before this court to show that he has put up construction of 2nd floor by placing necessary evidence like change of khatha to his name permission and plan obtained by concerned authority, if so in whose name he had obtained such permission and approved plan, the estimation of cost etc. 20 SCCH-19 HRC.No.10059/2011
21. Further though Respondent has taken up the defence that the said B.T.Lakshmikantha in collusion with the Gunte Yadu Kumar, Hemanth and also the Petitioner had played fraud on him without executing sale deed etc., but as per his admissions he has not lodged any complaint against the said B.T.Lakshmikantha or against this Petitioner for having alleged fraud played against him and no such materials evidence has been placed before this court nor elicited any materials admissions from the mouth of PW.1 with respect to the fact that he has been in possession of the petition schedule property in pursuance of alleged oral sale agreement and not as tenant under Petitioner. On the other hand as per the discussions held above, there is finding by the Hon'ble Court in execution petition and also there is finding by the Hon'ble High Court including the Respondent herein and other objectors namely Ashwathchari and S.Shankar are tenants in respect to the petition schedule property. Inspite of the same, the Respondent had taken vague defence before this court just to over come the situation of the eviction of him from the petition schedule property. Hence, with all these reasons this court is of the opinion that the Petitioner has proved the fact that there exist jural relationship of landlord and tenant in between himself and the Respondent and Respondent is tenant under him in respect to the petition schedule property in view of the property purchased by him through court 21 SCCH-19 HRC.No.10059/2011 auction under registered sale deed dated 30.08.2007. Hence, I answered Point No.1 in the Affirmative.
22. Point No.2:- It is the specific case of the Petitioner that petition schedule property is residential one and he is Mechanical Engineer and running Murthy Scooter Care for the purpose of repairing two wheeler. Hence, he desire to occupy the petition schedule premises along with other two premises in occupation of other two tenants by converting the same into non residential premises for the occupation reasonably and bonafide to the subsequent of his needs, after securing the same and he intend to run his business in the said premises. As such he approached the Respondent by explaining his needs and asked him to quit and deliver the vacant possession of petition schedule property. Since the Respondent has not complied with the request of the Petitioner, the Petitioner got issued legal notice against the Respondent on 12.01.2010 and called upon the Respondent to quit and deliver the vacant possession of the petition schedule property. Inspite of service of notice, the Respondent not vacated the vacant possession of the petition schedule property. Hence, he has maintained this petition stating that he requires the petition schedule property for his own use and occupation.
22 SCCH-19 HRC.No.10059/2011
23. The fact of service of notice against the Respondent is not in dispute as the Respondent also not denied about the service of notice against him. But it is the contention of the Respondent that he is not a tenant in respect to the petition schedule property. On the other hand he has been in possession of property. Hence he has approached the said B.T.Lakshmikantha asking about the notice. Then the said B.T.Lakshmikantha had told him that he would set right the matter. Hence, it is the contention of the Respondent that since he is not a tenant in respect to the petition schedule property and on the other hand he is residing therein on his own right, he need not vacate and deliver the vacant possession of petition schedule property. But as aforesaid discussions under Point No.1 it is proved by the Petitioner that the status of Respondent in respect to the petition schedule property is that of the tenant and not as agreement holder. Further the need of Petitioner is not denied by the Respondent. Thus this court is of the opinion that the Petitioner has proved the fact that he is in requirement of the petition schedule property for his own use and occupation. Even otherwise the Petitioner has deposed his evidence with respect to his need of petition schedule property for his own use and occupation by swearing to an affidavit. Hence, there is presumptions in favour of the Petitioner that he requires the petition schedule property for his 23 SCCH-19 HRC.No.10059/2011 own use and occupation. Hence, with all these reasons this court is of the opinion that, the Petitioner has proved the fact that he is in requirement of the petition schedule property for his own use and occupation. Hence, I answered Point No.2 in the Affirmative.
24. Point No.3:- For the foregoing reasons assigned to Point No.1 as well as facts and circumstances observed therein, I proceed to pass the following :
ORDER Petition filed by the Petitioner U/s 27(2)(r) of Karnataka Rent Control Act 1999 is allowed with costs.
The Respondent is hereby directed to quit and deliver vacant possession of the petition schedule premises in favour of the Petitioner, within a period of two months from the date of this order. Failing which the Petitioner is at liberty to evict the Respondent with due process of law.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, computerized transcript thereof corrected by me and then pronounced in the open court on this the 23rd day of February 2015) (C.G.Vishalakshi) Member SCCH 19.
24 SCCH-19 HRC.No.10059/2011 ANNEXURES Petitioner's Witnessess:
PW.1 Sri.S.Vasudeva Murthy in HRC.No.10058/10 PW.2 Sri.S.Vasudeva Murthy in HRC No.10059/10 ...
Respondent's Witnessess in HRC.No.10059/10:
RW.1 Sri.C.S.Rajannachari
RW.2 Sri.A.Anil Kumar
RW.3 Sri.Hemanth Kumar
Petitioner's Exhibits in HRC.No.10058/10:
Ex.P.1 : Original Sale Deed, dated 30.08.2007
Ex.P.2 : Original Certificate of Sale
Ex.P.3 : Original Khatha Certificate
Ex.P.4 : Tax Paid Receipt
Ex.P.5 : Property Tax Paid Receipt
Ex.P.6 : Encumbrance Certificate
Ex.P.7 : Certified Copy of Order Sheet in Ex.No.15125/2005
Ex.P.8 : Certified Copy of Application filed in Ex.No.15125/05
Ex.P.9 : Objection filed by the Respondent
Ex.P.10 : Rental Agreement
Ex.P.11 : Notice dated 08.01.2010
Ex.P.12 : Postal Receipt
Ex.P.13 : Postal Acknowledgment
Petitioner's Exhibits in HRC.No.10060/10:
Ex.P.14 : Copy of Notice
Ex.P.15 & 16: Postal Receipts
Petitioner's Exhibits in HRC.No.10059/10:
Ex.P.17 : RPAD with acknowledgment due
Ex.P.18 : Postal acknowledgment
Ex.P.19 : Postal receipt
25 SCCH-19
HRC.No.10059/2011
Petitioner's Exhibits in HRC.No.10060/10
Ex.P.20 : Order sheet in Ex.No.15125/2005
Petitioner's Exhibits in HRC.No.10059/10:
Ex.P.21 : C.C of Sale Deed dtd.30.08.2007
Ex.P.22 : C.C of Sale certificate
Ex.P.23 : C.C of Khatha certificate issued by BBMP
Ex.P.24 : C.C. of Tax paid receipt
Ex.P.25 : C.C. of Tax paid receipt
Ex.P.26 : C.C. of EC
Ex.P.27 : C.C. of Order sheet in Ex.15125/2005
Ex.P.28 : C.C. of Application Under order XXI Rule 96
R/w 151 CPC
Ex.P.29 &
29(a) : C.C of notice
Respondent's Exhibits:
Ex.R.1 : Receipt for payment of the amount
dtd.08.02.2003
Ex.R.2 : Receipt for payment of the amount
dtd.10.02.2003
Ex.R.3 : Complaint
Ex.R.4 : Copy of complaint
Ex.R.5 : News paper publication
...
(C.G.Vishalakshi)
Member
SCCH 19.
26 SCCH-19
HRC.No.10059/2011
23.02.2015
Judgment (pronounced in open court
vide separate orders)
Petition filed by the Petitioner U/s 27(2)(r)
of Karnataka Rent Control Act 1999 is
allowed with costs.
The Respondent is hereby directed to
quit and deliver vacant possession of the
petition schedule premises in favour of the
Petitioner, within a period of two months
from the date of this order. Failing which the
Petitioner is at liberty to evict the
Respondent with due process of law.
Draw decree accordingly.
XV ACJ