Karnataka High Court
Sri N Rajendran vs Sri N Ramesh Dead By Lrs on 29 November, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:43406
CRP No. 2 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 2 OF 2022 (SC)
BETWEEN:
SRI. N. RAJENDRAN
DEAD BY LRS P1 TO P3
1. SMT. VIJAYALAKSHMI,
W/O LATE N. RAJENDRAN,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
2. SRI. ARUN PRASAD R
S/O LATE N. RAJENDRAN,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
3. SRI. VIJAY ANAND R
S/O LATE N. RAJENDRAN,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
PETITIONER NO.1 TO 3
ARE RESIDING AT NO.46/10
1ST MAIN, 2ND STAGE,
Digitally OKALIPURAM,
signed by BANGALORE-560021
SUMA
Location: 4. SRI. B.R. RAJKUMAR
HIGH
COURT OF S/O. LATE E. RAJENDRAN,
KARNATAKA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.26,
GROUND FLOOR,
3RD CROSS, KASTURI NAGAR,
MAGADI MAIN ROAD,
BANGALORE-560023
5. SRI. K.S. SHANTHAMURTHI
S/O. LATE K. KANDASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.11,
SRI NANDANA NILAYA,
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:43406
CRP No. 2 of 2022
2ND CROSS, 3RD MAIN,
MARUTHI NAGAAR,
J P NAGAR 7TH PHASE,
BANGALORE-560078
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. M.S.SHANKARAGULLI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI. N. RAMESH
DEAD BY LRS R1 TO R3
1. GEETHA K,
W/O LATE G. RAMESH,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
2. SANTHOSH R
S/O LATE G. RAMESH,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
3. AJAY
S/O LATE G. RAMESH,
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS,
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
NO.15 (NEW NO.15/A)
1ST FLOOR, 2ND CROSS,
NAGENDRA GARDEN,
SRIRAMAPURAM,
BANGALORE-560021
ALSO AT:
NO.U/9, GROUND FLOOR,
2ND MAIN ROAD,
NAGENDRA GARDEN,
SRIRAMAPURAM,
BANGALORE-560021
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MOHAMED KHAN A., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1
TO 3)
THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 18 OF THE SMALL
CAUSES COURTS ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 26.11.2021
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:43406
CRP No. 2 of 2022
PASSED IN S.C.NO.15294/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL
SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, AND 24th ACMM., COURT OF SMALL CAUSES,
MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR
EJECTMENT.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioners have challenged the judgment dated 26.11.2021 passed by the V Additional Small Causes Judge and XXIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Court of Small Causes Court, Mayohall, Bengaluru in S.C.No.15294/2019, by which, the suit for ejectment was dismissed.
2. The petitioners herein filed S.C.No.15294/2019 for ejectment of the respondent and for recovery of a sum of Rs.70,000/- being the arrears of rent from April, 2019 to November, 2019 and for damages of a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month from the date of filing the suit, till the defendant vacated and delivered the vacant possession of the schedule 'B' property and for an enquiry regarding mesne profits.
-4-
NC: 2023:KHC:43406 CRP No. 2 of 2022
3. The petitioners claimed that they were the joint owners of the suit property having acquired it in terms of three registered gift deeds dated 25.03.2019. They contended that the donors were their respective spouses. They also contended that schedule 'A' property was the self-acquisition of Smt. Muthamma who bequeathed it in favour of her three daughters and later expired on 26.08.2018. After her death, her three daughters became the joint owners of schedule 'A' property, got their names transferred in the records of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike and were paying the tax. They contended that the defendant was the son of Smt. Muthamma and their brother-in-law. They claimed that Smt. Muthamma had permitted the respondent to occupy the portion of schedule 'A' property which was described as schedule 'B' property in the suit. They alleged that the respondent was aware of the Will executed by Smt. Muthamma in favour of her daughters and that Smt. Muthamma had directed the respondent to vacate and handover possession of the schedule 'B' property to her -5- NC: 2023:KHC:43406 CRP No. 2 of 2022 daughters. The petitioners contend that they requested the respondent to quit and deliver the vacant possession of schedule 'B' property, though he had agreed to do so, but yet was delaying it, by one or the other reasons. They contended that Smt. Muthamma had inducted the respondent/defendant as a tenant in the schedule 'B' property on a monthly rent of Rs.10,000/-, in addition to payment of electricity and water charges. The petitioners therefore caused a notice of termination of tenancy and since the respondent failed to comply, they instituted a suit in S.C.No.15294/2019 for ejectment of the respondent.
4. The respondent entered appearance and filed his written statement denying the validity of the gift deeds executed in favour of the petitioners by their respective spouses. He contended that schedule 'A' property was the self-acquisition of his father, and his father had acquired the said property in the name of his wife Smt. Muthamma. He claimed that he and his brothers had all contributed for -6- NC: 2023:KHC:43406 CRP No. 2 of 2022 the construction of the building over the said property. He claimed that his father had executed a Will dated 15.08.1980 in favour of Smt. Muthamma to enjoy the property, till her death and later on, bequeathed it in favour of all his children in an equitable manner. However, he alleged that his sisters had created a Will by forging the signature of Smt.Muthamma and got the Khatha transferred illegally without the consent of the defendant and his other brothers. He claimed that he was not a tenant in the schedule 'A' property and was not inducted by Smt. Muthamma. He further contended that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between him and Smt.Muthamma or between him and the petitioners. He further claimed that he and his brothers had filed a suit in O.S.No.4968/2019 for partition and separate possession of 'A' schedule property and they also sought for a declaration that the gift deeds dated 25.03.2019 executed in favour of the petitioners as not binding upon them and the said suit was pending consideration. Therefore, he claimed that notice of -7- NC: 2023:KHC:43406 CRP No. 2 of 2022 termination of tenancy issued by the petitioners was suitably replied and therefore, he contended that the petitioners are not entitled to eject him from the suit schedule 'A" property.
5. Based on these contentions, the Trial Court framed the following points for consideration:
"1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the defendant is the tenant under the plaintiffs as on the date of the suit?
2. Whether the plaintiffs have issued the proper quit notice as required under Section 106 of TP Act?
3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for relief as sought for?
4. What order or decree?"
6. The petitioner No.5 was examined as PW.1 and he marked documents as Exs.P1 to P24. He also examined two attesting witnesses as PWs.2 and 3. The defendant/respondent did not enter the witness box and did not adduce any evidence. Based on the oral and -8- NC: 2023:KHC:43406 CRP No. 2 of 2022 documentary evidence, the Trial Court held that though the petitioners had terminated the tenancy, but they failed to prove that the respondent was a tenant under Smt. Muthamma, later under them and therefore, there was no established relationship of landlord and tenant. Hence, the Trial Court dismissed the suit in terms of the impugned judgment and order. Being aggrieved by the same, this revision petition is filed.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners contend that the respondent is none other than the brother-in-law of the petitioners and that he was inducted into the suit schedule 'A' property by Smt. Muthamma on a monthly rent of Rs.10,000/- per month and after her death, the petitioners being the present owners of the suit schedule properties, had called upon the respondent to quit and delivery vacant possession of the suit schedule property. However, since he failed to do so, they terminated the tenancy and initiated proceedings for ejectment. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that except -9- NC: 2023:KHC:43406 CRP No. 2 of 2022 the oral evidence, there is no evidence to indicate that the respondent was a tenant in the schedule premises. He further contended that since the parties were closely related, there was no document in writing to evidence the lease. He contended that the respondent who claimed that he was in possession of the property in his own right, did not enter the witness box, did not establish any of his defences claimed in the written statement. He therefore, contended that the Trial Court committed an error in dismissing the suit. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the Small Causes Court is entitled to adjudicate the suits for ejectment, when notice of termination of tenancy is issued in respect of an arrangement between the landlord and tenant, which is evidenced by oral evidence or document in writing. He therefore, contended that the Trial Court could not have dismissed the suit, as the tenancy of the respondent is terminated.
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC:43406 CRP No. 2 of 2022
8. The learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 is absent and therefore, this Court did not have the advantage of his submission.
9. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners.
10. A suit for ejectment has to be filed before the Court of Small Causes, in view of the exclusive jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court as set out in Section 9 of the Karnataka Small Cause Courts Act, 1964. Under Section 8 of the Karnataka Small Cause Courts Act, any suit for ejectment of a tenant based on an agreement in writing or oral, has to be considered by the Court of Small Causes. When the petitioners filed the suit for ejectment of the respondent, they rightly initiated proceedings before the Small Causes Court. However, the question was whether the petitioners were able to demonstrate that there was a relationship of landlord and tenant, which was the bedrock of jurisdiction of a Small Causes Court. If only when the petitioners are able to demonstrate that there was a
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC:43406 CRP No. 2 of 2022 relationship of the landlord and tenant, could the Small Causes Court pass an order of ejectment of a tenant.
11. In the case on hand, the petitioners claimed that they were the beneficiaries under gift deeds executed by their respective spouses and that their respective spouses were the beneficiaries under the Will executed by their mother - Smt.Muthamma. They also contended that the respondent was the son of Smt. Muthamma and he was permitted to be in occupation of the suit 'A' property on a monthly rent of Rs.10,000/-.
12. Per contra, the respondent contended to the contrary and disputed the Will as well as the execution of the gift deeds in favour of the petitioners. He did not accept that he was a tenant in the schedule premises. Therefore, it was incumbent upon the petitioners to adduce sufficient evidence to establish the relationship of landlord and tenant between them and the respondent. Unfortunately, even on a thorough reading of the entire evidence on record, it not disclose even a shred of
- 12 -
NC: 2023:KHC:43406 CRP No. 2 of 2022 evidence to prove that the respondent was a tenant under Smt. Muthamma or under the petitioners. On the contrary, the evidence of PW.1 shows that the respondent was in permissive possession of the suit property. He also admitted that certain other proceedings were initiated by the respondent in respect of the suit property, which were pending consideration. Therefore, there is no material to establish the relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioners and the respondent. The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners on the judgment of Full Bench of this Court in the case of Abdul Wajid Vs. A.S.Onkarappa - ILR 2011 KAR 229 would not help the petitioners in any manner. On the contrary, it would advance the case of the respondent, in as much as, the Full Bench took note of the fact that the Small Causes Court is only entitled to look into the question whether the relationship of landlord and tenant exists and whether there is lawful termination of tenancy. The Full Court also took note of the fact that even a mere denial by the tenant of the tenancy, would not be sufficient to oust the
- 13 -
NC: 2023:KHC:43406 CRP No. 2 of 2022 jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court and it is upon the landlord to establish the relationship.
13. In so far as the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners in the case of Sri. Siddharooda Swamy Math Trust Committee, Hubballi Vs. Shankarsa and Others - 2023(4) KCCR 3430, that was a case where the tenant filed an application for rejection of the plaint on the ground that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant. The coordinate bench of this Court held that the relationship of landlord being a question of fact, the same cannot be the basis to reject the plaint itself on an application filed by the tenant. However, in the present case, the evidence adduced by the petitioners falls short and does not prove the relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioners and the respondent.
14. In that view of the matter, there is no error committed by the Trial Court in dismissing the suit.
- 14 -
NC: 2023:KHC:43406 CRP No. 2 of 2022
15. Consequently, this petition lacks merit and is dismissed.
16. It is always open for the petitioners to file appropriate proceedings to establish their title and recover possession in accordance with law.
Sd/-
JUDGE HJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26