5
Rent Act 1999, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rent Act'
in Sh{)I'E] and HRC No.26/2001 was filed by her tinder
Section 2"f('2)(a)(r] and (0) of the Rent Act.
Court alloweci both the said petitiezls 3;; ..
and (9; 9f Sectrien 27(2) of the Rent Act «and %A:t¢;»s;c:c,~:1 ti:;¢
petition in I-{RC No. 26/2OO1T'u;1clef 'c_1 ause (;~;%"%s;V;?' ,
Act. Aggievcd by the érésr 200 1, insofar
as it reiatas V petii:i0:1 on the
ground therein has flied
HRRP Nd; the pendency of
this refisibfi died. Further, her
mentally i'éiiar;'i::::1V '.dau.gh£ér for whom ihe possession of
Apre1§§,isés'vwas claimed in HRC No.26/2001
:u:;;¢::T% c;ause[%A(;%~; also died. Therefore, there is no
,disp1éte ~bfim9éen the parties as to the HER?
/$3006 having become infructuous. As such, the
iiabie to be dismissed.
W
"F
3. Since HRRP N023?/2006 is liable t_e__ be
dismissed as having become infruetuous, E 1:9
proceed with HRRP N0s.233/2805' "":'1.--§8f22'.)"24('_}V{}6'._V Mt"
'I'i1erefore, the arguments of Qrfi _
learned emmsel for the petitietiier-Teh,antsA t§e€f1''tf1ese '' V
Revision Petitions are 'heard
of Sr}. 3. Nagaraj, fer the
Respondent-Ifartttitadyizltegbttt11:VI+}i*{RI?:"'§i§ee'.233 /22005 and
182/2006.? passed by the
Trial petitions. Also
peI*use€i«.ti1e ebtained fiem the Trial Court
A ” -. heard the learned Counsel for the parties
*–ti”1eéeu.”;j~petitier2S, the points that arise for I113?
g detefifimafien are:
‘ tttwtt Whether the Trial court is justified in
: allewizlg the respective eviction
petitions in beth the HRC Nes.23 and
.r——3″””””‘”””
8
26 of 2001 on the ground under clause
(a) 01′ See.f27(2) 01′ the Rent Ace?
(:1) Whether the Trial Court is
justified in gaming eviction 5
allowing the resfieciives [e*v ieIj011’V
petitions u11der’ e’ia;.1se’ “{9} 9f
27(2) of the Rem: fghe
respective» ‘t1iefeiI1
to deliver ;_vaea1;i'{.;:’ ef the
respective ‘ to the
pse3£iti§f§’I’1eI’s'”therei11__.¢_ ;
5,. ——– ciause {a} of Seetien
2?(2) :ii1§:.eVer111eI1ts made by the
deceaeed u’;:etitieV1;1er¥i;émui’1ady Smt. Padma, in both the
v «axe under:
V’ feependent paid rental upto the end of
.. te the petitioner hem} and
ehzfiiiéiinged valid receipts for all such
_ iiagfmerits. He abruptly stopped paying rents
V ‘ ‘j_«to her Without any cause er reason and thus
H he became defaulter in the matter of
payment of Z'(‘:i1t am he has met paid the
rents from 1.5.2000 onwards. The pefitioner
0—S*”\”‘-“\…..
33
get issueé legal notice dated 6.9.2000 to the
respoxzziem tenants demanding arreale of
rem: of i~2s.2,0()0/- for the period from May
2000 an the and 01′ August 2000. nesm-;–: [
receipt of the said notice, the resp0r3;’ie1é.1;’~’..’._: A’
tenant did not reply to the same nee ‘
paid the said rent. Agar; the em or
petition, the ‘teI1éi:;1tA_ wee. petifioiier
a sum of Rs.4,0G{) of rent
from May 1 ‘ ‘2QO0i ‘ -of. Vifieeem her
6. of the landiady in
respo1″:de1;11; . filed their respective
stategfiaefits cf Glzjeetioits corztenéirigas under:
respondent was inductm as a
V the petition premises by 6116
‘A Vasa111_;haPI3*”\, who was owner
meeeef. Afiter his death, the p€{i”tiOI”1€I’
V ” * _def}:1a;1ded payment of rem, the respendent
V’ ” ebliged her and made payment cf the rents
to her but latexgen, one Smt. Rajamma, W/0.
(___$””w\..—\_,_,-
A’ __ pefitiens, the respective
_ §§§=;1<;='i in {fiS§}"E_2.§f§ ma: i}:3'£§;: {€516 :i<:22a::":{.:'=5 in $532123
rf::%'S;}&;;::§§*:€:_ géséiziaieass Céiiiiéi E33 §1E{'i'L%;C§;i€i{§ £33; £335: .
vf}E'%§1}Ii§S€iS in $31322': 335:5 :;%a553 .-imgé 21:: Efiiflfi, ::::é:2%:": 22:3
iiéisgmtfi as :0 €§;'1€fI'€:f bsfiiig _"§iiE'é§.E I'€;'1Eifi{3E'i:"~§»fii§3 {if §a11:"%i<:::'£i
E1
:*@=.31_:e9§:«:;E$2*:{ 31;; E'fiE'*1§§ii}:§ pa;-'$226111, sf 1'5'-:3'}.*t".:
Hfiiliffi, §.§.}:fi' pr3:§:.i:::z"1 %_EIiC§€:E' $§{:{éi:§;_
{E26 §{az:::a:2::i:) <2? 331$ aizi Aéji. €3E3i ii}{}§i". ix: _« *§1'éi§z:§%:§:.é;':'::<;§'…
€31': a;;;3;::"::céaié:3a ::::=:'A1'{.%z7::._?:':¥i<;Eé'::é:::.,i.:::;",i2:%.:;?:3:?{;i
aéii 21:33:} by E931 fig: ;33:*ii5?3:;"":%;:: }:<:?:–:.~';:*f':.":':-;'x<.T.§T'_"..%~'_;:':ié;_:%. V<i:'!t:s:u;*{ %'1aE~;:
§'s:E€;°:{31'ii&"i Ks; i§:"i{3}:11;§" £32': §3f;75§§'ii,J' :59'-2'3,E–.§§Z§5§f{'~f;?§i§i"3;}§E'"E£i3Ei'3iE1g ta:
<;':§€1%.1S€ (3.) sf' S€:C€31<'m"1a3f"~.;j}:¢' ..%Eit*3;";'§; ac": ii} fiat:
',«%;'I';'f%:'z:1a=;i*s,»*é%i*.'V' i:~*2'é'23;z?=::%;;'§:a* i_§'§:'A.';t.%'i'r:%" '="z=:{§;'zf}';33;T::r:::' §:x::€{Ei}i:"? {fiat
x
73
(“E
3:36: r€5pé::s.::2ié%&;»’;:2:$§”=Ga1{i::3:Ei¥¥”{<i:3ei§?.iS in '':;:'::t}:: 3138 Saié
éxsezzsaj ::s3:2i::iii:"€«§:.=;{i;':_ zgaakizzg {$9.3-='::1€:s§. cf {sf
E'§E"i?; §:;._ tiié §'}=:-?':{:E%;'é{3:%;%§:}1'.._§3i1iIi1£§.d3-' ami '{hfi'1"€§}f={ ii: §:i}<}:a.'=f3::i
:'zi::;=::"j;3f:'§.:ifi;:}:';:::; :31: 33:5 :::ai:§ gmzzzzzi.
%%1$:2:'i:i1a13p3_, 81$ <}?:§;gir:aE {3sa:*1'";€z"- <35 ziim gifitiiizsig
a;::':d *;:*:=11:az1i §}€§3:%;"€fiE"i éaie ':z'asa1§ti":appa anii éim
<_,____S"""'\.—-\_,~–"
in mm me £-IRC.Nc-$.23 & 26 of 2001. Therefo;f¢; :.:¥§Qf£h
the erciers insofar as they relate to the g*ant__ _
under Clause (0) have been challefiged u v
of 2005 and :32 of 2006 by the mm»:;m¢ag;}ts.%
pertinent to 110116 that botI1V’i1’12%:_Vevi?ét§§”r1 pCiitiQ;1S_VViI1…§tl1V(3 *
said cases were filed Lmger tile firofiisigns ‘i)’f”‘t:hi: Old Act ?
sf 1961, which was in fflmg cf the
said petitiaxm… Act 1999 came
into face, tmder clause
(0) of ‘ her pleadings in
the tile averments cozxstituting
the ..a.T’-136.. ‘I’§1€: said averments which are
V’ Ht}ié”13étiti0I1s read as under :
‘V “fi¢tf£§OI16T submits that thsugh the
‘_””%resp<:&i:3ént is tenan, is under her and having
paiazi iiiie rem up ta and of April 2000 UL) her
~ ; 119 .$.now in his reply/ statement of objscticns
* . Jana with a malafidc intention has denied the
ownegship of the petitioner over the petition
schedule property. The I*€S13€}I"id€IlI'S
,-w-«r-"-"""*\..—6
ffi
the 03d Act, for depositing the rents in respect of the
respective premises and as such, may never gV%§id,¢d
payment of rent.
18. It is not in dispute
wife 91′ late Landlord BM in ‘V ‘
OS.N0.8186 of 1995 v:::Eax;’1I1i172g”i*’Qé1f’éx{;§usi£ré’*i:itié to the
petition premises in the deceased
Smt. Padina 31$’-fig’ the tenants
and respective petitions
in 2€§¥}(}’V’1}iLnder Sectican 19 of the
Old cf the Court to depesit rent:
31, I’ff;Sp6jCt Gf _:th’.3 petition premises for the
11,:If “%–_May’: and onwards and that they
in the said petitions.
134.; the learned counsel for the
mesa HRRP Nos.2s3 of ‘2i)O6 and 1822 of
A p_iac1fi,x;g rciiance on the decisiarz of the Hoifble
..S{1premc Ceurt in the case of Sr-LC. Chandr-aarzwhan. Vs.
V sengottagyan reported in Am .2000 SC 568 equivalent 1:0
.»_:g”-/w’-r\..__,,___”,__
:3
therefere, the Trial Court rightly” ailcmsed the eV_ie§:iaz1
petitions under clause (0) ef Section 2712) of
Act and as such both the impumied V4:
do net call for any ._
revisions. in the decisien A . T Av ‘
c. Chcmdramohan vs; LRs &
Others reported in the Horfble
Supreme 17 therein as
under:«- V . A ‘
xéaa-51¢-;’§s1′?r of title 01″ the
zandioni, 3% Shouid renounce his
cheiaetee 213: set up title or right
; ineeneistent ivit h the reiationship of landlord
1’:e;1_ant,_. “eiiher in himself er in a third
In case of derivative title of the
the absence of a notice of ‘
of title :1: favour of the landlord or
n T zittfiirnment of tenancy, a tenant’s assertion
the landlord “is 3 cc:-owner dares net
“amount-. to denial of his title,_ umess the
tenant has also renounced his relationship
as a tenant The principle of equity that a
-2:’~–~,,-.._.,__~__*_~/,
rw-…,.J
as
tenants have paid rents to the decmsed Smt. Padma
after demise of the omna: Lanczigizwcx i
B.N.Vasanph_appa for a considerable. K V’
2000 and. View of the
bonafidely approached the forAfiicp§3eit311g°I§§§i’its”:for %
furtgher pericd. In this sgicw 4of'”iI.i§?:; um rérie laid
down by the i-IoI1’ble above said
case aptly ,V V presez1t cases.
Therefore, tgpmion, that the Trial
Court _ eviction on the
gmumugags :Se<.:tion 27(2) of the Act. As
such "érders insofar as they relate to
wound in respect of both the
péititifillg deserve to be set aside.
2.2;; .1T1i§: submission of Sri,P.I'.). Surazla. ieamed
V' fiztiliziscl for the revisipn petitiezler—tc:I1a11ts, that the Trial
he directed to take into account ail the clepssits
" made by the resgective Tenants into the 00111': While
(——3hV""""*x.._,_..
xi
2.6
quarmifying the arrears of rent payable by them:
accepted, beca11se,it is for the Tenants
Triai Court that the said deposits were ‘u
them and I1{}tiCC of the same Jvtoij ._
and that the said, deposits Werremade. towaziivs of ‘V
rent in eemplianee with girder under
clause (a) of Section 27(2)..ef therefore,
they (te11aI1ts)§V 11ot in terms cf the
%F’er. ¥:’}1§;+-.. ‘aforesaid, While answering
point Ne…1__ :i1’1 the’ and point No.2 in the
‘Negative’, I page the following,
,””.._HR§fi§._Ne’s§’233 of 2005 and 182 of 2006 are
hefehy” in part. Beth the impugned orders
rme.Nes,;g3 of 2001 and 25 of 2001 by the
Le.[e;:=§ar::¢s-4:1 XII Additional Small Causes Judge (seen 8), L
_ — Eafigéiiere, are hereby set aside insofar as they rebate to I
‘T ” -{he grani: of eviction in favour of the petitioner-iandlady
(–~n_.§”””‘x/~*