. (B3?"Sfi:v*-I§.VI'.$§IKATARAMANA, ADV.) HRRP.N0. 120.2008 IN THE HIGH covm' or-K}xR'i~tA'rAKA AT BANGALORE DATED mas THE mm DAY OF NOVEMBER, BEFORE M %% % THE Homauz MRs.JUs'1*1cE B.v.NAGA.z?A'fmN:z§;;j ._ T' V% H.R.R.P.NO. ;. HETWBEH: 1 SM!' FATHIMA MARY D/O LATE (}NANAMANi~. ' A _ AGED ABCZiLI'F~45 " : R/ATN_Cé,18;>¥ST.CRG;SS _ " NAGAWARA awn RQAD, ' ' NEAR :?fm.i:s_AY E K.G;"H,ALLI, mNGALoRE:4~5. 2 SM?'-ELEzA3ETH. Ram ' D / ox Mrs' €.}NA,i*€Ais!AN:!"" AGED .A1s:oU*':f 44:1 _ 5:/AT N'cs._1s,. :51' 'moss .. 4.%,:NAGAwARA..1»gA1ri ROAD, " NE,AR'?TI~i DAYSCHOOL '= .. _ max, BANGALORE--45 . .. PETITIONERS n--um-:u-u-u-men . LEO PINTO S/0 LATE BURLAND AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT 140.2 1,. B TYPE QUARTERS ROBERTSON ROAD FRAZER TOWN BANGALORE-5 . . . RESPONDENT
flied a petition under Section
Er the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 seeking
a A oftcnmts on the ground of nozrpayxncnztt of
‘.~;Vi”;§nt and that the tenant had sublet a portion of
‘ . _ and that thc premises were required for
by the respondent] xamnom who had becom: the
HRRP.No. 120. 2608
(By Sri: J :3 ELANGOVAN, ADV. FOR (:1 R)
THIS HRRP FILED U/S.46 or KR ACT, ‘AGAIflST”‘P.Pi_E *
01213922 m’.s.1o.2oo? PASSED IN mac NO: 190351-2095 on
‘THE FILE 0:? THE xv ADDL. %3nw,L -CAUSES JUDGE,
MAYOHALL um’, BANGALORE (.~3cc;+mjs9),’LTTALLowz:¢%r3
PETI’I’ION U/S.2(2)(r) AND (b) om.-.212 AC1′ AND DISMESF-.IN’G_
THE PETFFION U[S.27(2](a)*£)_F KF.’._A’C-‘1′, Ieégnzezntz SEE;KIH(}
gvxcnom. ” _ ” *
This HRRP comm’ ion fix;- _§’t§FgT§iER HEARIRG on aim
day, the court made thé’
ms’ ii by the tenants
challenging % ‘ih«{flv%, 3.10.2007 in
HRc.No.1ooaS,(2’o o5 “the Xvth Addlsmall
Causes Judge VA S
2. of the case an that the
owner of the premises by virtue of a registered saic decd
dated 30.1.2004.
. ;1eithex”– geese ihégggfiaenem herein his tenants and under the
petition filed fbr mcuon’ ‘ under the
V Ree: Act was not maintainabic and they
fbr dismissai of the said petition.
U Based on the above plmdisngs. the trial’ court tamed’
Vtshe foikming points for censisiczafionz
HRRP.N0.. 120. 2008
-3-
3. In response to the notice issued by the
petitioner] tenants appeared and denied that »a
jural relationship between the parties
the resP0I1d_ent herein could not
of Karnataka Rent Act. They L»
mother late
Sri. Mathew had enteredjnto under
the said agreement fieutein possession of
the schedule was dated
5.6.1980 the eézeement they were
residing in the respondent
in the insteiit fihat he had purchased
the schedule W/o Mathew on
fI;_’c1*eVk{‘.)ft§,v…}1.fl«”WaS the owner of the premises,
fievertiieiess » not claim to be the Landioni and
&.
HRRP. No. 120. 2008
…5..
circumstances their possession was the
year 1980 till the respondent herein had
petition. Earlier HRC.No.10004/2005 whim
was however, withdrawn t1 ::i1’s f.
HRc.No.1oos5/2005 was filed. i%a«;:t:;ereroge,.;~;u13mj:§”
in the absence of there a tenanf
Ielafiozgzship, the pmsii:~3ig)ns’¢’ef Rexji could not
have been invoked by hence the uni’
court oughtite’ Ifiaye petition.
8. the learned counsel fer
the Iveepe:11dei:it’:Vi§§ete» Margaret had purchased the
one Sri.Mohammad Aii on
pmperty was a vamt site and
» was put up and afier that because of
beumn his vendofs husband and Late
‘ ‘, the latter was put in perm1s’ sive
* Sabsequenfiy, the said property was said by late
Smtmargaxet in favour of the respondent hexem on
and having puxchased the said property by a
xegisteredsaletieedamd havisagbeeeme theownerandfitle
holder, he was entitled to evict the petitioners; from the
scheduke pxemises.
% % 1.11;] i§,e,33AotvvV”in dispute that the schedule pmmjses
Z to one Sri. Mohammad Ali, but sold the
1 of S::nt.Margaret by a registered sale deed
26.4.1978 which is pmduoed as Ex.P5. What was
HRRP..No. 120.2008
9. He has also relied upon a decision of
reported in {LR 2004 Kamataka 4782 to
stepped into the shoes of his vendor who in»
Inspect of the schedule
attomment by the pctitiontrrae’
invoke the provisions of
of evicting the
10. Taking the points that
arise for V
1. was. jusizfied in
holding Ihaz relationship of
landlord and parties?
[f_ ihe* point No.1 is in the
” aj}’Ezmiitivé,””:vhe§her the trial court was justified
Vin’ .<zIIr;1£!ir:g;'fi€!tz;–:,;ie:t:;'tfon under Section 2?'(2[p) as
rr;eofriw*Acr?e
purchased by Smt. Margaret was a vacant sia: and thereafter
a oonstrucflon was put up md subsequently, it is admitted
&.
_HRR2>.Ne.12o.2o08
._ 9 ._
in possession of the schedule premises as tenants. _, in the
absence of any kind of rent being stipulated or: “the
respondent hexein is not the landlord aithough
purchased the scheduk pzemisee; .b.y__a
and could clean’ to be the owner dif
12. In this context it is were at the definition of
the landlord under ;§(e};_ which states that
the landlord mm s at I’v3.VA~;1§7’I1é§.3i”‘.f”t51;-.i.VVt}:ie time being is
receiving’ ‘ or tE:e’~;*ent of any premises’ ,
whethettton. account of or on behalf of
or fot’;«t.tie _.other person or as a trustee,
guardian Gr It:<::eiv_er~–for~.–en3r other person or who would so
rc1tt"o1*…tG' be entitled to receive the rent, if the
' Lpiientiaest to a tenant. The definition of landlord
' implies three things, namely a valid lease,
tenant in possession of the prenfmes under the
and acceptance of eontractuai rent agreed in
of the knee. Hence the xelationship between the
u ""pm't1?e3mustbeonea.eaiandiom:iamlatenantasitisonlye
landlord who would be entitled to receive {RBI if the premises
are let out to a tenant. The consideration for a tenant being
fie:
his clear that there wee absence of
the parties.
stage it is relevant to consider the decision of
1 rendered in the case of Silva Uddin Vs. Nagaraju
in me 2004 Karnateka 4782 wherein it have been
held that whenever there is transfer of ownership, the
HRRP.N0.3.20.2008
…..:[2…..
between the parties herein. No doubt the
have purchased the schedule pzemises by a
am and therefore, he had ciaimed to be e§;?=~
seheduie premises but neverthelees
status of the landlord viz~a§e§:z{ the” L,
were in the status of eouki
not have been em «Rent Since the
vendor of the mspondeee landlord of
the schedule of automatic
attommenti” of the respondent
merely i I A pmexmees.
The ” of the schedule
premises by refizecment and the admission
sezizle earlier proceeding that there
he between the petitioners herein and
transferee becomes the owner of the premises, the tenant
fl/»
HRRP.No. 120 .2008
-13..
‘cannot dispute the right of the transfez’ee-»l.a13;d.10ni ta
maintain an eviction petition under the Rent Act .._cIain1
rent would then he umzecessmy to
transfer of the lessofs rights
‘Transfer of Property Act pmteets ‘by 4.:
tenant to the uansfemr witheut vof
creates statutmy attomnac’1;f.’~.:._V’»v would be
applicable to 3 of
relationship of wad during the
subsistence would transfer the
p1e;iii;isestv§fhi<.'*,h§ is tenanted to a third party,
in . would step into the shoes of
the laxiiillpitl agdbc be entitled to receive rents fiom
to seek eviction.
2 case, however, since I have already held
is absence of jural xelafionship between the
” r the respondent purchaser of the schedule pmmises
‘ not c}ai.u1 to have attained the status of the landlord by
TV the mere purchase of the property. Hence the said decision
is net applicable to the fleets and ctixcuazzstazxoes of the
present case. Under the circumstances point No.1 ‘m
answered in the negative. /£4
i~iRRP.N0.120.2008
“14-
I9. In View of my answer to point No.1
negative, point No.2 does not suxvivc for
much as the petition for eviction under the ” 2
Act could not have: been
herein, in the absence of ,,
relationship between the _
20. Hcnoc this The eviction
petition filed dism1mod’ . The
seek possession of the
schedfik: with law. Parties to bear
sa/«.2
Fudge