IN THE HIGH comm' OF KAR_NA'I'A_KA AT BANGALORE
DA'I'Ei7) THIS THE 15%} DAY OF FEBRUA§§'Kf A
BEFORE
THE HONBLE A/Ir.JUS'FICE'AAAi§{AVi.NI)«
H.R.R.P No.1/2010 (V:/w r§i%;£2;'1"§:A:9 Nc3"f'2/:2,»o3(j
BETVVEEN:
Smt.JayaIakshmi,
W/0 late Srinivas.
Aged about 38 years,
Residing atS.N0.l6/2,*""= :" 1 :
Door No.54. 3v""'"5 v1£"»/Iaih
Amrut:hah211.Ii;., Ofip To MSV Cabfie, .
Sahaka1'I12:£:£;"ar..'PQ.-%.vtQ'w .
Banga1o__r§r--9'2..,"" _ " ...PETITIONE2R
" "=5 '" '% moMMoM
(Sri Y€3.Szh.L1' Miéhrfiq Fndo Legal Inc. GVS)
AND: _v
'V V' "Sri 'B..':S.2€\i1'ui1if8}L:, A """ '
Subbaiah.
' ab_€:VJU't " 5? years.
R'esidir1g at'f."}:N<§[i:41~7, 19' Cro:e;s,
I M__.':11'n_... ~ Byat21re1yar1ap'uI'a1 Post'.
g Yelahanka Hobli.
VBanga1orC?56O 0:32. ...RESPONDENT
A Ti«{Sfi«»7I7:APre1k21s}1. Adv.)
(COMMON)
§.J
HRRP I/I0 filed under Sectticm 46(1) of KR Act
aga1’ns1 the order dated 07.1 1.2009 passed on IA~I in I-{RC
E51/O7 on the file of the Chic:fJ1.1dge. Court of Smail
Causes, Bangalore. allowing the petition f”i1od’h.__b_j§ the
petitioner therein filed under Section 45 of K’R”A:(?.’f7e1r1d
HRRP 2/10 filed under Section 46(1) of KR the
order dated 07.112009 passed in HRC 151,407 Ao:;”~the7fi1é~
of the Chief Judge. Court of Smail C.21u:3e_$:.~..p£3a1′;gal(_)r€€:,
dismissing the LA No.4 filed by f.}*1’e’;*i”ro8p()nd§:nr.’ ‘vi:=E._;erVre-15:1 u/ T.
43(1) and (2) of KR Act.
Tllese HRRPS oon1ing.»on__ for i;1.drnissio’n Vdgiy. the”
Court made the following:
IF’? A
. O Ronni)” “‘ .
Though tlrtxe no1ar,iio1r Eistttjd’ admission, by
consent: of 1ea;rrie_d:’Ad\Lfocg1to?s for the parties. the
rnatter’Ci;§”fa’kéi71_v1.1fi’fVfor_:ii::1é11 hearing and disposed of.
2. ‘{“h_e” reV}’sio’n “p§:’i:it.ione1’ who is the respondent
befkliio utihe co1§:’rt«.brc:2 dated
‘CV07’.121.2609″whoreunder I.A~I flied by the respondent
“.f}<1oréi1;1 under Seciiican 45 of the Ka1'nata}<:a Rent Act, 1999
VVé§S allowed by directing the revision petitioner to pay
6..
§
1);-
Rs.6.000/- as a1’1’e211*s of rem from Je;1111.1e11″y 2004 to Mezy
2007 emd at the 111119 (H150/~ per month I_}1c?1’eE1£'{eI’ till
date within one m01’1i:1’1 {T0111 {the cIa.t(:é of the ()I.f{if’§F § fA_-4
filed by the re\~’isiot1 pCi’.i.ti()I’1¢’;?1.’ m1d€r Se(:ij:i_()1i—.V4S–{_tI’*} “c’Ej’13d”{.2u}
of [116 Ka1*11at..’:1ka Rent Act. to ‘
in HRC 151/ 07 on the g:’Q1.t1’1(i 1 }ia{. 1”,h§319–£;:. :1 IR}
1’el21t:i0I2ship 0f1a11d101*d and {iii-*z1i111i’:_ was’-di s1n’iss(;d_.
3. T116 facts in 11Lfl1’t’sh~eii, 215$’ fO’i1Vo”\’>vs:
The p211.*ti;§S v.areé;’f<3f'éi*1':ed<' their rarlkings in
tha Court bél<51..V:"=. 'V «
'F116-.pet:iti'Qt1eA1*'fi1éd_}1':.1eviction petiiiion under Section
2'/{2)(a} a"ngj1"{1.j) xcitf .I:§E.11'1}£iT.£}k2} Rent": AC1. 1999 aga1i11s1[.
the, «13(§%spendcén§; «.c};1iz_11:1'1g to be the I:1bS()1'L.lI',f,'. ()\/V1161' of the
»sCi1e_du.1e'~.p:fei*njses. P121vi11g acqu1'red the salne under the
05.02. 1988 {ram SIm:.Kemp2-1m111.21 and Sri
j Sri1'1fv;1S'.A.V The re-sporldent filed her st.21{.emem_ of objections
..f'd€:r1yi.11g the ave1'r:1e.I1t.s nlade in the pei[i1T1'(.'m and also
taking up a ('on1'.c=:m;ion that'. there is 1'1()juraI 1*oEaI.j()11s}'1ip
of landlord and t'e1'12u'11..
4. During the pendencty of the eviC~tior_if~pé’t.i:tiQI1.__{.i”1:r:$
p€’.1′,i¥iiOH€I’~EE1I1d1()l’d flied an h’1te1<1og311i:0.1*y."-z1p';§}i_§:2:%;i:)n.
nameiy. {A-1 under Sect.ior1o"4-5V of
1999 seeking a <:1j.rectiou to the
arrears of rent — at the rate of
Rs.l5O/V per 1T1OT]th ';1i1::}:..1':'o mollth during
the pende1i1p3;;:v applicatmrl carne to
be by fiiing; a memo and
c()nto.e1:':,§1i11g filed to the 1112111'; petition be
treated elsobjsicrfiorixio' the 21pp1i(:ation aiso.
52.’7I’h’€_rerspofide11I–tenam. ffled an application under
%o.oS’em{io:ijjo’:2;3(éoV)T–.V;:nd (2) of the Karnataka Rem Act, 1999
wh13reL1V_r1de3f~w’she prayed that ail further prc)(?eedi1’1gs in the
‘A ‘”-._V “efviTct;ior3… ;pet.i1:,ior1 be stopped on the groLmci_ that there
_ ‘existeci no jural 1’e121’t’i01’o1sh.ip of landlord and tenant. ‘1’ he
(3
7. I have heard Sri Mishra, .1€?21I’I1€:’d (tomasel
a.ppeari11g on beh:«;11f0fIndo I,e>.g_[‘gz.-11 Inc. and Sri ‘I’.Pre1k21sI’1.
lezuned e0’un.f”the
Court that SL1bS€q3,1.€I’1[” to i1:1véé”-vQ1’cie1*”p_e1sseVcv}_ l6″3?V”t”i’1’cé’VCourt:
below they have been able.-~tr.)”V-ufiearthh’a~..n.ofi(:e dated
14.08.1989 issued by Smi,;Ke_1§’1p3an€ma, who is none other
than the n10t.her?i__n–121;w (jf”t1;e f1″~e2ni_si0r:« petii:i0ne1′ wherein
has ca§teg(>.rii::a11y’atjn_ii”t1.ec?_ t’1′.1:at.she a teenam under
Sri {he respondent hereirl to
demorlstréxte 1;he.rfe .i,é”_.”‘e11’1 admissi()11 of fact.
..AIVI1’shVrxé1″;A learned counsel for the 1*evis:ion
pefj_tiuOn.e’1=.._whfieflaking me through the order of the Court,
beltmf WL)’13_1’dA(2{)I1f;€11C1 that admittedly the respondente.
K “deI1jied.ih’e re1at.1’onship of landlord and terzant’ and the
_ C.(}m’f..=’be10w was in error in passitag the order only on the
u of the jt,:cfgr11<-mt. passed in O.S.N'0.5-441/93 wherein
-.3
the said Sri lVlLlT1i.l”‘cZ1jl1 had produced :1 _lega1l notice said to
have been issued (‘.or1t’ending t:l’ie;11’. the revisi(‘)n petii.Ii’o1’1e1′ is
21 t.e1ia1i1t, under him. It co11t.e1’ided by Si’i~«~~;’\./i.’i’:e.:.l’f_1’i*;fajj. ,_1e’l1re11:
the said fii’1di1’1g is not biiiding and l1ez’1ee__.1_A’li.;1t:’–e:a1’1r1oi’be
made use of by the Courts laelouwii, fo ‘:lfi(3l_d’-..tvl3e.1:r?:efisl
re.lai.ionship of landlord anrd, te1’i2m_i.”– I1’1,V’S;Ll_’}-F1/I:)()rt’.;Ofv’h’iS’.
submission. he relies upon of CbLii”1 in the
Case of Sn/£T.SABI’;lf}&i.A ..v__»4§li”‘JD OTHERS Vs.
sMT.s.K.sREEpEv1 lA’Q_§I)V(:.)’l”§(?(.’l..liAIi 2’oo9i5_) MR KAR R 1 12
to ermtexad t.h”211.:;:jde1″V:fii1dinl;:V21sxfo ‘fl1lVe”_’j’i:1ral relar:io11ship of
landlofdH’é1i1ecf:v7.t:e.I1i§lht ijuomhave been independently
found the NRCA:.jC_5Li~1%l””aiid it should be arrived on the
be1sis_oi’ ihéc-E _rV11.-:’ite1’i2i’l placed before it. and not by the
‘ mai;efiail”i;)léieAed in éLmdiil’e1’e:i’1i. _pI’oeeeding.
talVp(arL,1sal of the order passed by the Court
j b€l()W”…ilfiS Seen mat. in order to allow the applieat;ior1 filed
;’i;.ll.E’.’, landlord and dismisss the applieatiori filed by the
‘ 1′:ei;12,m1, the Court below lias relied upori tzlie judg”me.h1.
passed in O.S.N’o.5-441/93 to come to a conclusion that in
the said suit there was a fi1’1di11g_g directing the;’.p–l21intifi’
therein (“respondent herein) to approach ‘f,l’1\.’;~’«~~–I’:§’I1.l’, ‘ ‘Co”uri.
and on the basis of such a finding the _C’o_L1~–r:”.:)1e}o_w has
held there is relationship of laiidlorri ‘aicidi-t.e1-1.ant ,ar.d
allowed the landlord’s applieationhhand
teraantfs application. The 1’elVev_ar’1t:_porti-oijiiojf order of
the court below reads’ asxunderi: V ~
“F’ur1:her, even petij;io’i1″er’establishes
his ownvership over «me. .pe’t:ii.ioVi1 schedule
remisesg,the’1l’_burder1~~.isLi”‘§o11’him to a ain
establish7..~vv_t_hat*.._fl1:,e — respondent is in
o(é(:z,1pationV .c’>’i:'{cl.1t’-*’~prct=nises tenant under
him. ‘In “that re.ga’rd, the petitioner has got
,.«§p”1uai=ked jndgment and decree passed in
O.:’3?i’$o.”5.441/1993, wherein, the respondent
second defendant. On perusal
decree. it is seen that; the
a”plaintiil’/petitioner herein filed a suit, seeking
“V A e.vic”tion of the respondent and I}fl(){‘.l’1f3I’~il’1~laW’
V’ -. .ir()m the scheduie property and also for
payment, of damages claimiiig mesne profiits
– gr”: _,..4
is
9
at the rate of 150% per mor1i:}’i from the-.___
date of the suit. iii} deiix-*e1*y of suit
property. F1,1riher._ it; is alleged iihai.;”éiii;eif-»..:f.’
purchase of the property, the dVei’€é’3<1da.i.i'i'
requested him to permit. t:ifie'i*i1"t'r3 (?()I'lIZ_i«!1_'i.i'L§._in V'
possession of the propefty ai°~.r_e.i'1I_ of "
RS.150/- per month ..e~ii1d_ asVhe'isV reviei.€:ig1.fi/,i,Vt}V
defendant. No.1. he u'"pe_i'm_iiteei*-. to
continue to O{?C'&py t.hie""pi'einVi'se_s o1"ii"en"i of
RS150/W per it is
seen that. :'»itiism_issed
observ_ii_ig§'fh.eii. the iiioi"maintairiable
and iih"e't.he purview of
t;h.ei—-.=.A<':'t,V» the £'or'egoing
c_§'i__rCL1msVt2i1it2e;'Si 'fi.I1diI1g given in the
s1;1i'i.,V V*vhiCh._ the same parties and
VW11i1€.uE1'IjiS'J'J€I"iIig isstie No.2. framed with
to 'i.i1e..–«i<iatLire of possession of the
A _V plfoperiy-.of the responde11i.. thus, in View of
theW._:ii;§"§ii'hgs given holdi.rig that the
resp~<w_hjde1'ii. itenam. in o<_:ei,1pat.ior1 of the
psfemises. it has become (1onelus1've and also
A the respondent has not preferred any
"appeal against such .21 finding given in the
said suit, ii: is held tiiat. there exists jurai
/ ,. KL
3
L?
relationship of landlord and tenant between
him and the respondent.”
Now as referred t.o supra. Sri Prakash has pr(3C§1,i(fEijCEV”Ch€
legal notice dated 14.08.1989 to C,’.()!T1J[€Yl§?1V”t’.’i'”i”‘~t’-l,.’f
law of the respondent herself had a ‘*
tenant under respondent Sri I3.S;’ML1’nirajuWlfiiiis rri;at.e1’i_a1,
which was unavaiiabie ¥:)efoi’e_’h’t}1_e Co-urti”beIow is now
made available in the”‘r.evisio:1Vip*ro(:e’e.di11gs. Admittediy.
the revision pet.it.ior1er_di:’d-.no.t ti’ie~-beriefits of either
traversing it?_”or:;1je’ojeeiin§g ‘it. xiHe1’1ee’;”‘wit.hc)ut expressing
‘I ‘ ‘ . – I
any opiniongon the merits or demerits oi the rival
eolitentions raisvedlin regard [i.e.. with reference to the
1egai_.notice” the order of the Court
“”-beI’e\2{i’ iisvhereby se’tMasi_de and the matter remanded to
-._the. Ci(3.Li’2<fj, to consider afresh and decide both the
app1i(:ati~(3:1Sf~»'on merits after considering any other material
it be placed by the parties in accordance with law.
_ said exercise shaii be carried out within a period of
= month from the date of receipt of this order.
a.
Acr<t()rdir1g}y. both the 1'evisio1'1 petit'i()11s 211jé.._;:i}}g)\ved
and {"116 1m1{te1' is 1*ema1'}cied to the trial C()'i.i'rf–«f;_e"sh
disposal in accordanzre with law.
No order to Costs.
Sd/_
AI/~ _fl