in mm man count or KARNATAKA C " if if *'
cmcurr BENCH A1' * f . '
DATED 'mm 'run 2151 DAY (5,?
33?"-F %
THE Hommm MR. 5.3." B'd?Qlޣi
I-I.R..R.I5:;_._iEn»'.' H H
BETWEEN: ' '
DHEERAJ KEsH;aV'K£§1vG1§EILA§.V": =
AGE : 52 YEAE'$,"~OC%'}_:_='£:3USII\IE$S
R/O E:HEERA.i} TAILQRWG MATERIAVL '
SHOP No.3, 169.5/'2,:'.1g,5MDxEv GAL1__._1_,
BELGAUM """ ;
. PETITIONER
{BY SR1 sjv. uAi~J(3AD1, A[D%j.";2,"~-OCC ; RETIRED
=52/0 T16?9;.1,':2A:g4::3:3v GALLI, BELGAUM
THROUGH HES PAHOLDER Ms. SHEELA SHANKAR
SI~EE'I"I'I, AC}E3':Tj_3G"YI§3ARS, OCC : PRIVATE SERVICE
_ R/O '14579_g1', RAMEEV GALLI, II-SELGAUM
K " ' {$32 535 R E: KULKARN1, ADV.)
RESPONDENT
” THES PETITION IS FILED U/S 115 OF CFC AGAINST THE
«.’.’om;:»E12 DATED 5.1.200? msszap IN HRCRP.NO.’?3/2005 on THE
f FIL-E OF THE I ADDL. DIS’I’RiC’I’ JUDGE, BELGAUM, DISMISSING
“.’I’HE Rsvisiou PE’I’I’I’iON FILED AGAINST THE ORDER AND
” DEGREE DATED 29.10.2005 PASSED IN f-IRC.No.88/2003 52.? THE
1
“4
1: ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) 85 JMFC, BELQA:;i§é.;’A:§:;::)_iai-::si<1_
THE PETITION FILED 'U/S :27('.2)(r} as 31(1)( cg OF :»;I§;»=.c,%r'. '
THIS pmmow COMING ON z='<:a-R HE'.'§RE§3IG,.; :§A*{7,: 143:3 V
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
o R 1:i”‘E.;§ M
The pefifioner–tefiaz.{f is in this second
revision against the concuficnt by the Eviction
Court as Well ‘_VE?¢:i.*isi%;1i. V’ the said 0:121:31′, the
Courts filed by the respondent
herein xgnglegVsc¢fié:L 2i(1).ga*) and Section 31(1)(c) of the
Kamataka Ré11tV_:Ac£,’.’–19 99«(iiereinaftcr refcrmd to as the ‘Act’).
I The respondent herein had instituted the cvicfion
pv-féfifisan No.88/2003 seeking possession of the Shop
1″;¥G4éM’.}D fir at C.’I’S.No. 1694/02 measuring east to
.V west’. 8.. 1:011:11 to south 7 feet 6 inches with the
u as indicated therein. The said shop premises is
.’ ois;§”ofA–thc shop premises out of the total six pmmises located
itithe building. The said building was said to “be in the joint
I,
‘a
3
ownership of the respondent herein. and his sister Stat. Stglshila
Bigambar Gohagarkar. Amongst themselves ttesye
paltiitioned the said property wherein flame shope
have failen to the share of the respondent u
the said three shops, the petition ‘ehop iejene Iém;;g5n.g
them. The respondent heI*e:i_lé’–eoutght for L’
petitioner who was the tenant K The schedule
ggxernises was not sought for voeéiupéation for their own
benefit and benefittof theAean.t1e~wae the petitioner
is a avaiiable under the Act.
The petitioner contested the said petition.
Among other’ At1’1eV’*~;’:$etitioner also disputed the jural
= tmaaegeseip bcmééneee-,-V respondent herein and the petitioner.
—petifioner herein, he was the tenant of Smt.
sushila eiggmfief, who was the owner of the bujiding and as
fsuch hvdtisputefi. that the petitioner herein is neither the
e1xfi’1er..oftt1e building nor the landlozfi of the respondent
-£3. The trial Court after considering the rivai contentions
of the View that there is jural relationship between the
4
‘1
parties and further found that the respondent heIeinjh«.e<_':i«.ti:ade
out a case for grant of eviction order.
dated 29.10.2095, the petition WasJ.aJloWe<i§W ' f5eti_iti;o:2e'i9V'o.
hezein filed 21 Rent Revision Petition 15:12::
Rent Revisional Court after ooz1–.sv;ide1invgV– the tioiiteniiofis p1i$..
forth concuned with the 0I'C1C}.'_§j}uE'1SSf3{1_» by..ti1e_ : Eviotion Court
anti as such dismissedv _Iet!_isi3)3:t 'pgfifiiog granting 30 days
Time to vacate and ha11r1..oVer ' ;5o:3'se'ssion. In this
second revisitaxi 'fi:i:ion,v:'–the iesue revolves around the
jam! mlofionsiiip 'A fieié against the petitioner
herein véxxozci ._ ».&§$~pect of the matter requires
ConsideI'atio:i<…A " A S
-._answering the said question, the contention
iaetifioner herein has been noticed by the trial
z ariverting to that aspect of the matter, the trial
V’ also noticed as to whether in the present facts, the
— Court itself could consider that issue or if the same is
mbe considered by regular Civii Court. Rightiy, the trial Court
3 has come to the conclusion that, all that the tenant had sought
J
‘1
5 .
to contend is that the petitioner befoze the $3531 not
the landlord ané this aspect could be considered .
adverting to this aspect of the matterhthe ” to
noticeti the contention of the petifionero
Sushila Digambar Gohagarkar-‘w1_1o ié;’..1_ione L.
sister of the petitioner before it _x ti;zeV ‘owxier and to
that extent, there was no; ¢’iisp1.§te :1§e’i11;{cei1..t11e pexfies. After
noticing this aspect of the Court has also
noticed the evidxénotieitlhof ~ is none other
than of V€.t3il(24§.I\v£°:t_~;’a1.¥(}’12%.€3tC;:Vt’1’£ herein viz., the eviction
petiu’one:’.’A’« VP’.’W.S3 other than the son of Smt. Sushila
Digambar regalti, it was noticed that the
‘ Vearidenee of P.=¥§’.2 woifititvbe most relevant evidence to answer
inasmuch as when P.W.2 being the son of
Stat.’ Gohagarkar admits that there has been
‘in vzespect of the property and the shop in question
to the share of the eviction pefitioner v:iz., his uncle,
asgect wouid clinch the issue. 01:; noticing that
V “vaetleect of the matter, the Eviction Court has also noticed the
suggestion put to the wimess P.W.1, Whexein a similar line was
J
“-
6
suggested by the petitioner herein that the property belongs to
Smt. Sushila Digambar Gohagarkar. On noticing thatiof
the matter, the Eviction Court has also stated tijeit Vmeiely’ 3
producing a parbltion deed alone wouid. voztt ‘ ; 2
the petitioner before it and in addition
Court has also noticed that thetzeepondent isefooe xoot set L’
up title in any other person byV_ste:§:i1_3.g’w..that. had been
paid to such other T . _ rent was neither
paid to Smt. Sushéla of the respondent
herein. was of the View that the
jum} re1ét1;ions1V11’p:and the other contention with
regard to ..;oetitio:1 to-obtidtictoci through the GPA holder was
ve.i$o—placing Ieiiance on a judgment of this
(.3o.1Vii>tvth’e of KAJU oew –vs- H.S. RUDRAPPA 11.12 2ms
“4’£3′?(} this Court had. considered the decision
t;y t11e Honfble Supreme Court and was of the View
Vt ” ttlttznatt the cm. holder can maintain petition.
O31 merits, the Eviction Court has Ilflticéd the need
T ” etéted by the p€tiii(}I}.6I;£lL0 run their business in the said
‘5
which is also noticed by the First Revision Court
that both the Courts have noticed the evidet1c_c;’~an£i1yeed V’
same and has thereafter come to its cohciaeioc; on
the face of 11;, the ieasaning does not édttiit of aI1fE’.tApe1xrern’sity;. e’ ”
7. Having said. by the
petitioner with xegard to also requires to
be noticed by out by the Courts
below, the in any way disputed the
title toV~the’ ” Digambar Gohagarkar
under admittedly was the tenant.
Subsequeittiyté it fast’ ttte’.cG33;te11tion of the eviction petitioner that
u theV_*sft;op_iAiauque$’tio1t__]:te.s fallen. to his share. Though the said
‘co”n’teVn.tionc heésvbeen disputed by the petitioner herein, there is
placed and in any event, the son of Suit.
~V Gohagarkar was aimed by the eviction
u x V’ pctitionet and he did not dispute that the shop in question has
.’ to the share of the eviction petitioner. When that is the
“position, merely because there is no document executed
between the parties, the theory of partition cannot be discaztled
J
‘2’
since the admitted position is that the parties
the properties by oral partition. ‘I’heMHqnestiQ’n”‘oi€:i0ek§.ngV fined
the correcmess or otherwise of sueh».1pa:fiti{)n’wo’t11ei cnfiy
if the parties to the said pa1’titi:5n..1aise’n_n’y Qthetbbisntxe *
to the same or dispute the said annénésfljthenaselves.
8. Themfore,’ when between the
parties to the bind the mm
parties more bof the premises and
merely been attorned by the
earlier o’:€£’e’:r1e:1*’. not. give any better right to the
tenant to dispute. _£i1eA’–._oWnersh.ip when the owner of the
* independenfly established the same before the
:”‘I’.herefo1’e, once the ownership of the pmperty
is esfabfisbeei when the tenant himself admits that he is a
of building, which was originally owned by Stat.
V’ “:.$uxshiL.’~:1 Crohagarkar, there can be no éispute with
the jam} relationship and both the Courts below were
” in zznming to their conclusion.
J
‘.1’
if}
9. Having come to the said conclusion, both the
have appreciated the evidence on moonti to , a
conclusion that the eviction petitioner has. madc:; o’ut Viorufi
seeking vacant possession of the pxtzznises. T13;4eivo1’e~xve,v ‘
the said reasons, this second xevisioiteisléilexioici “m.e;ri_t Lie
same is liable to be rejected. V_ _V
10. However, before diéposiog of’t1je”pet§tion, it is
necessary to notice ‘ Aqfigat “.reof)<)ndent-tenant was
since it is 8. commercial
pm-mise.§§,–. '1§e1"e;o:1 would have to make alternate
an*ange;J:1en£"'~toV' to other possession of the vacam,
" –.r:;!31riVso1:oe' would have to be granted for vacating
oonsiilexing this aspect, this Court also
wen-11iiM« h:va{:e:"f be conscious of the 3engfl:1 of the litigation
Cbetween {he pmfies and it is seen that the eviction petition was
in the year 2003 and already six years have elapsed
such keeping this aspect also in mind, it would be
" éfrpmpfiate to giant three months time to the petitioner herein
1;
11
to vacate and hand over vacant possession of the petition
schedule premises.
Acccmeiiirigly, with the above observations, tla-.e.”i$
dismissed with no order as to costs.