2
S} 0 LATE SR! RAMAC-HANDKA
BHATTA, MAJOR
RIAT VINOBHA NAGAR,
BEHIND BHASKAR' GARAGE
SAGAR SHIMOGA DISTRECT.
4 SM!' LAKSHMAMMA
w/L} 1,;s;r:.~; sun RAMAL'-IMIANDRA
BHATTA, MAJOR
R/AT' VINOBHA NAGAR,
BEHIND BHASKAR GARAGE
SAGAR SHIMDGA DISTRICT.
(By Sri : s v PHAKASH, ADV]
'mus _:r:;e.:s;p:':j,_v_;_+*.::.;;s;:;>__ U13-._"1;.£v5 CFC AGAINSI' '1'm::
ORDER D;r?'ED1a::24.3;:2<}o6Ti'.'§PA33Et;e_ IN RR.NC).?/2000 on
Tim F'IL_EV 1I§fé#i2I,..'£:1'3Tg1::'?I' JUDGE, SHIMOGA,
ALLOW¥'NG"i"HI3 F?E*;('I"$.{_{;iPs{"PE'}'i?3'¥C}N AND SETTING ASIDE
THE oRD_gRV":3s::*Ex3:'«v%._ 1a__.1:2-.19§9 PASSED BY THE
m<L.c.:vi1, J.U£)<.a'r£,'«{;;i.}{}'L).N;*},' VSSAGAR IN H:<c:..No. 3/1993,
PARTLY Am,ow1N'z:; 'i"'HE. PETITION FILED U/S 21 (1) (a) (11)
3:, (9) OF KRC" 5.11:': 12~e;2R'~--EV1{':r10N.
V. 'pr-ixition "gavixlg been heard and reserved for
ififagarathrza J. pronounced the foiiowiug:
QRDER
A' rtzvision pefition is flied by the landiady
-- cZh:a.'l»'1eiigi11g the czercier dated 24.3.2006 made in Icvisicm rent
T " "R6,?/2000 by the Pr]. Disizfict Judge at Chitxaciurga.
V Uriginaiiy, the pefitianer herein had filed ki.§<.C.N0.3]93
55..
before the Prldljivil Judge {dr.1)n.), Sagan The eame was
aflcrwed by 0n:£er dated 10.12.1999 against Whieixretttae
Iespondent herein had preferred Revisicm Rent;"'No§Zf.
and by the impugnw erder, the eviction. we
iamiiady was dismissed by Ztfiiejj. £i:Yi%§ioIt
Being aggrieved by the said orzier, the .L_atnd1ad§rv5E3,aeVp«fef£§1ff%e::iV *'
this revision petition.
2. For the sake {if Vteomrgxgieneeit parties shall be
referred ta in tenne of t$1e:i':x'* ."ir:ef:;1T£'3 court.
3. The -the owner of the schedule F
pIemise§§'"Vfiiegji:.the petition under Section 21(3), (£1),
(3) and V'{Q)" the Karnataka Rent Controi
Act, 1961' before the Prl.Mu11sifi at Sagar.
to A' originafiy, the respondent had
‘ §;i1autt3_diésc1:iI3*._eonst1ucted a thatched residential house in
. premises and was living there with his
fantilgf site belongng to the Towii Municipal (.3.o1mci{,
., Sager. V””i’h.at the respondent who was working as a peer; in
*V1V:£e”i§!even11e Department was acquainted with the husband
V’ bf the petitioner, one N.(}.Keriyappa, who was working as a
Revenue Surveyor in Sagar. That due tr: urgency and
93..
necessity of money, the reepondefit offered to seil away the
gefifion schedule housese to the petitioner for a etxtn of
Rs.4()£)/~ on behalf of himself and his minor sone._et1§i-
deed 14.’?.19€>7 was regstered on 1E3.’?.i9?f)f’?V’z,aV,t:i<:tK
petitiozler was put in possession of'"the& ssixae, 'ti%'4w:aefaleo
mentioned in the saie deed that ttie
sale cerfifieate of the petitic-:1» site V
the Town Municipal Council. 'and tt1é2t..theEpetitioner
had paid the full _Rs.400/ — to the
reepondent in respect.-"of . the property.
'I'ha.t '-*t.*1ev;Saga:* Town Municipality
for .*sa._:}e' eeffifieate in the year 1968 and had
obtained dated 1e.1.1:-ma. That after the
traneaetton, the respondent had taken the pefihon
on lease from the petitioner on 1.1.1984 on
Rs. 1501- and that he had defaulted in the
payment of tents since the year 1988 and that tifl 30.6. 1992
the rent " due was to the tune of Rs.7,950/~. That the
–..resv;noz1de11t had altered the house’ from thatched house into
VA __aE Mangaiore tiled roofing house without the consent of the
pefitioner for his comzenienee, ‘l’hat the respondent had got
eieetrifieation to the petition scheduie premises Without the
9»,
consent of the petitioner and that he had eon_st_;x*ucted
another house of two ankanas of Mangaiore
house Without the eensent of the petitionefi
retirement of the pefitionefs huseand the}? stag’ . Z
in the schedule premises t:3=_j3;ezaefdfe,V Tithe
s<::he<;iu1ed house. Tixat tE1eVte11a_Vncy"w.as L'
midnight on 31.8.1992 and t|i1ei:';esp§5n4::leI'1t no right
to continue in the hence, sought for
eviction ofthe 1fesp011(ie.nt ._ 'v «
4. in fespefilse by the trial court, the
x’es13c*»:11::iee’:A1iA’ filed his statement of objections
‘denyin g_t’i::e “tile petitioner in the schedule
garemises, that the thatched house had
2,eon’vertedH a tiied roofing house and that the
– to the Revenue Department of
Village and not to the muzaieipality, the
mspexfient denied that he had said. the scheduke property to
A _£t:e’*«_pet:itioner on 14.?.i9f:.~s’?’. He aiso stated that the ‘l’aw:;1
had no right to execute or issue saie certificate
in respect of a ievenue site which was situated in
Sannamane Village. it was also contended as false that the
is .
J’!
RWJ and another witness as RWXZ and they got marked
1:3xs.i<2»1 to W25 and cbsed their side.
E). 011 the basis 0f the above material on 4_
court flamed foflowing points for iii:-:'-: "
i} is them any b<;::a'*fieie :
I’€Sj{;:i,’s”””, of the petition 5se}:ié::iuiee.’E$ej;*.–veen
the paxfies? ‘ ‘ ‘ V
Does the i:§é!itio:_if£e1j_ lefitilord
and tenant ‘ miafiexiéiiigé. hersseif
andmp res:{3d11d;e;i:1t’§~Ae.V:’e».’ I .. ”
iii) groves that the
_ fb§§%§ro;:1iuLi.e:1f.$§”a.;e arrears of rent and if
‘ . st» th&f:e’tlie§§_:TVizafze not paid the arrears of
rent months from the date of
xveL’ei_Vp’tV of notice Without sufficient reasons
pr cauééé?”
iéi} the petitioner requires the paefition
‘ feeheduie piemises fer her banafide use
and oocuaptiotn?
by is partial eviefion is perémissibie?
C) To whom greater hantlshiip will be
eauseti? I
v} [Jones the peijtiesxaer proves that the
petition scheciuie premises is reaaonable
£4.
and bonafide required for immediate
purpose of demolition land reconstructiologee.
alleged in the petition? ” l
vi) Does the petitioner proves
respondent has e1~eei:etl«. afl
struet11re Without the
petitioner on t.i1e*petit:iol1’1. l 3
vii) Does the “pmvee *t.hat.J§ the
petition not used
for the purpose for’ was let for a
of ‘ ‘
_ ‘ex h£i£;:ezde5efldee1~ee:!
»:~h¢omnm;e Issue Nos.i, iv(b), v and vii in
the _negatf.ze ils.51l1.eT’l Nos. ii, ivia} and Vi in the
‘~ llisse-.e”No. iv{c) in favour of the petitioner and
‘ allowed the eviction petition under Section
“i3.1′(e1l}(al_)l, (0) of the Act and directed the respondent to
haosti level; vacant possession of the petition schedule
2 .. lplremiees within three months from the date of the order.
U ‘ii’. Being aggrieved by the said order, the legal
representatives of the respondent filed Revision Rent
No.7 [2000 before the P121. £)istric.t Judge, Shimoga. by order
.3»-
daft:-xi 31.8.2002 the revision petition was held to have,
abated. Being aggrieved by the said mjfiicr,
W.P.No.34f-9&2] 2009 was fiied before this court and *-3136*’
was allowed and the same was allowed and ‘
remanded back to the mvisional :¢_he_ ‘A V’
pa1’1:1’t’;s, the mvisionai vmurt Ira”
its conSi€£eratio11:
i) is there any bonafi§;ié . §ii3§_1ute.’as_:Vto the
title of tiTl6.._’ IEi31€i3;%§£i§{. V as to the
existence: of ‘parties?
ii) Wfiefiigi’ the }S1*::~v.t?.é that he is
the respondents
‘– ‘1:t,”V3. ‘.£,~ Act?
iii) *.–%{VhefiV1′::: vhse«…’~*’LV;)ctitioner is: entitled for
V V eviétim; of the respondents from the
ipefitioxl premises :1] 3.2 1(1)(i1) of the Act?
the petitioner is entitled for
~ _vévietion of the respondents 11/ s. 21(1)(a’) of
the Act?
A ; fv) Whether the impugned order passed by
H the kaagmed Civii Judge cajis for
intefiérencn at my hands?
vi) To What order? T
The txibunal anewered point Nos. 1 and
afiirmafive and point Nos. 2 to 4 as not four
consideration and by an order dated 24.3.2UUa$:’_aii6xsed tee” * ‘V
‘r
revision p-ention and dismissed {he evieiiont Zpefitienii’-Q1′
petitioner. Being aggrieved .$c33r..__ti1e order!’ x
has pI’Cf€I’i’B€i this revision _V
8* i have heard learned counsel
for the petit:ioner counsel for
the ”
9. _t« zed for the petitioner, the
revisidnai .eeu3’fi in dismissing the eviction
petition o’n”-the there was no land1ord-tenant
‘~ I’€i§.}i5i03’i1h$Iiip. ‘1’netvfi1e«’documents pmeiueed by the petitioner
to the house are the original sale deed
‘ezeeented deceased respondent in her favour and the
sale eert:Lfif eate executed by the Municipality at bag’ er in
” .. xrespectwof the site and the assessment and khatha extracts,
prinla facie establish title of the petitioner over the
u seheduie pm-perry. No evidence by way of documents were
pmduced by the respondent with regent! to there being titie
/$4»
it
in favour of any other person with regard to the eohedme
property. In fact the oontents of l:5}x.P2. woxfigi ~ it
apparent that the site initially did not belong
parties, but subsequently, the pefifioner t:i::tle?o§rs.’:r b
the same and hence the tesponéeiag notoeny
of the petitioner. Merely the haéi pald V
tax for some period woujld not that the respondent was
the owner of the Under the
circumstances _:he__ of the revisional
court be the triai court he
10. “Pee eont1n;«..i§:.ié’ on behalf of the respondent
that he Wee». in posseeeion as an unauthorized occupant and
was soki on 4.7.1967 by ii}:-z:.!’.2., he
‘ the possession. He has not paid any rents
“3:o”ti1e that Ex.P’.:5 is not a valid document in the
eye of and that the revisionai court was justzfied’ in
., A’ that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant
thereby dismissing the eviction petition which does not
for any intezference in this revision petition.
%»
11. Having regard to the submission made by thC.jii1″£;l1’nCd
counsel on both side, the only point that
oonsiczierattion is as to Whether the Ievisioziai % was V’
justzified in dismissing the ev”icji6i1’* ‘ b
petitioner httrein.
12. From the material on dfligspufae that
initially neither the title to
the schedule property by both
sides that thy’: t)¢i’t2>1.:tigt*–:c:i_A«::i’c’i.”‘tL¥:_.§o§’crnment and that
the possession of the site
(Hagar put up a thatched
houzgfij into a tiled roof. It is also
not in difijpxjte that is a sale certificate issued by the
V. :f§'[uxj;icip$.fi’q,r…inT«’favour of the pmzitioner herein, though
‘ ‘déeiimcnt is not admitted by the respondent.
It-‘..,__ ’15ixe::L};}et3lfioner has iet in evidenca of her husband as
PW. 1″ the basis of paéwcr of attomay produced as §:)x.P1.
Agtgéldmga to her the schedule property origlualiy belonged to
V. {he Town Muzxicipality and that the respondent had
cozmizucted a shed unauthorjzmiiy. He said the same
property to the petitioner i.e., only the oonsuncted portion;
%
that PW. 1 was at the relevant point of time Working in the
Land Acquisition Office of Sharavathi Project and tiiat the
szespondent was working as Peon in the said
respondent at that point of time expxessed.
seii the house and proposed V’Vl’h’ai 631 V
14.7’. 196′? the document was 153?.
was registered for a considegfifiipn 51′ of”.
Rs. 150] ~ was paid on ;4.7. «that e.’s13.3:;:. pf R$.2£O(}j–
was paid at the time of .1:5.:.’?_.19€)7 and that a
sum of R350; w§8.~gg. Fae ” ‘V obtaining sale
eex1;ific.ate the said pmrperty.
A On gave mssession of the
pI0perty”‘–te *f.heVV”;geiiiV1fiiu1§e;7 ‘on regtistxation of the document
is Vas §§x.}’2. Thereafter Sager Municipality
‘certificaie to the petitioner which is marked as
.e’3:”.__P’,3 ii-tiie khatha endersement issued by the
R/1″i}.D(iCTx§’jj.)€ili;£:j”AiS produced at Ex.P4 and the site assessment
xextxaei.-is at and the demand’ nofice is at Exfie, the
” receipts are at I:’;x.P?. The endorsement issued by
President ef the Municipality afler change in khatha is at
b3x.P’8. Six tax paid imipte are p3:v.:)duce(;i at i:Zx.}’9 to P14.
PW.1 retired from government service and the same is
$5
pmved by i:}x.l-‘I5 which is a eerfifieate and the
order is at I:}x.P1f).
14. According to PW.1 on 1.1.1934 respp:§£:is;;aai”_eg;»g§k
premises on a monthly mat of ‘fill 598″?
respondent paid the rents; reg1:jia19I3r,% huej_oA:si1’i:>53ee1oe:3ei:ljs«’–
defaulted in the payment of PW’. 1~.1fiaS,$;i_t Vpoint of
time posted at Hegadadevana”Ko’}e ta1eijig”ad;zantage of
his absence, the thatched poof
gpremjeee intotez. shed in the back
portion of of the petitioner.
011 ~ Iegardjng the arrears
of es vacant posseseion of the
pmmises é§i;d ‘§.he’V’acok:1oieé*ledgment of service of notice is at
the ‘gem copy of the notice is pttxiueed ai
”
to PW} in the absence of any other
premises. the schedule premises is required tor the xesidence
A {f ti<_1e petitioner and that the family would faoe the greater
hardship if the schedule pxemiees is not vacated as they
Wwere living in a leased premises and the lease of the said
premises was come to an end in June, 1997. /Q
/'1
16. in his cross-examination PW. 1 has stated that in the
year 1973 he left Sagan He has further stated
respondent was not the title hoider of the eche<_:_i;1Lii'e< .s;m;j _
that he purchased the house in the name 'l_'hefe –. u
is no document to Show the paymegite uqf '1
respondent.
1?. That there is no documefiiifévith T_i;w.1 has stated that in 1984 in
” .. fl1’e*- preeence of two gaeone by name Sauna Ujramaiah and
Qyamaza’ b in the office, the agreement relating
tenancy was finalized, however, the said persons had been
transferred to Mandya. /gg
18. ‘i’}:1e evidence of PW/2 and 3 with regard to tenancy
between the parties is of no aesietaace to the petitioneg”, but
Pw.iAii3ei1:1g the signatory of 1:;x.v«2. his evidence V.
xegarding execution of §:}x.P–2 by zespondem. .
then working as a clerk at Taiuk ..
respondent and identified him at the at’
the time of regtisuafion of }:;x.,P’;.r3x___
19. As opposed to the evidei1ee”eof they-e1:i’o;§Snef,; 1 in V
his evidence has state’d..4_thatVAV’éinee’ year’ “I’§ESf>–57. the
respondent has been in jiossesaiexi Ltiiflevjinemises and that
they have’-n’eveVr”bfee1i otit._(33f– possession of the said premises
since theii, eehwlile premises there was a
moi ” eensencfion and thereafter tiled moi”
.Ace11$ei1’eie1jo3j’was put”. up aiong with wall and other amenities
It is also stated by xw.1 that the
pefi!:ion_e1f’ bee never come near the schedule premises asicing
fmj maze; and that the schedule premises belongs to the
A’ ggovefnment and that the Municipality has not issued any
u Certificate either in favour of the petitioner or in favour
of the respotmgient. According to him, it is not true that since
1.4.1984, the respondent entered into pessession f the
/”
18
20. In his cross~exan3inatio11 RW3 has stated since
the schedule PIEDHSCS did not belong to the itunere
was no necessity of seeking the permis$_i9_:§_”‘ejf p§etif1euer=__
for putfing up certain C€)I1stI”u:7 which was on.»’v1.;5}’?.19’ej?;’=;éw…%1
has denied the 1&3! W1;%1€
documents. in factfiw. tgleevvsigiiature of his
father even the and additional
objcci1″ons:.fi§ie(¥1′:iI1 of the Witness
is {Lune Schedule premises being
soid—-by ti3e…petitioner as well as regarding
te1′;aA’nc~_v} from 1.1. 1984 the respondent
6I1f£3I’6;ii’…’.’atI’1tI_f) fmoseeseidn of the premises as a tenant on a
,.31§;di1n*1iy H5, 1501- that there was no relationship of
A 3 ‘end tenant between the parties. However. he has
._ ” a;;lA;ri1’iité’1i_:::¢;i__ b3x.}-33 to R5, R11 to» H123 and R14 to £4319 bear
“the ».f1iéa.Ine of the peiiiltioner and his name does not find a
.. plamsin the Voters list at t£x.N’.£(.1. RW2 has deposed as a
VV ‘-;’-zeiglzbour of respondent but his evidence is not of much
aesistanee to respondent. /%
E9
21, Fmm the material on record, it is nofieed ihat by
virtue of !:*3x.ir’–:2, the respondent is the seiier efHt}1e”
schedule house and the petifioner is the
vaiidity of the sale deed I;9x.P–;:?-‘ h’a’:s« 11053; >1;-hiailenged 9f’ ‘
betbre any competent court.
the petitiener regarding the they
otiginal sake deed ;..ex.v«2e.’–1.«V%§<ec1:t;d by-xheii deceased
respondent in her £a§du§3 executed by.
Municipality, 'Sager gieeifioner and the
assessment): facie establish
title of pmperty. it is also of
the petitioner had 110 title
over %:s e:4ei.1iy the constructed portion was
30151' 'W by resg\() ndLe1:a,t: ' to petitioner, subsequently. a sale
" isseeei by the Municipality, which is at t:}x.i'{3
'"c;:»n" Vh""11n..V:V'*i§1§g \tfi1e.}~fifle over the site in the petition. In fact in
is the sale deed, there is a statement that
scheéhgie property is situated within the Municipal Emits and
the sale certificate has to be obtained from the
Municipafity. §:Zx.I'2 is a registered document dated
14.’?.19e?’ under which the possessoxy title ef the
respondent was sold to the petitioner as the respondent had
fix
20
put up an unauthorised constxnctivn cm the site belonging
1:0 Sagar Municipality. in the said document it is;”(:–1car1y
stated that a sum of £63.50] – was to be paid by
to the Municipahty to get the Saie
name of the petitioner and a sum.-‘(Sf its. 1330/_:
aslconsidctafiau and a sum of (\Ef&’$ t_< 3 be
as consideration at the time V
statement that possession <)vc.¢'r" io..t.h¢:§petitioner
by virtue of the: said it is apparent
that by virtue vg 4.9.1956 the
schedule gomai land was
t3*ansfi-.:';_xrcd–A and by resoiution N0. 1'?
dated to make an abewiixte sake in
favcgur of ., V_Vpté”tit:ic§:uer and 16.1.1968 is a registered
jvixrhich also notes that a sum of Rs.134.75 was
I int: – Mum’cipa1ity on 4.1.1968 and possession of
t1i(:.__l:z0}1se_vL’iIaz:aT.s also handed over on 16.1.3968. T116 saici
is signed by the President of the Sagar
Fudufiicipafity and two other oouncilors and is attested by’ two
‘V jmmesses. ,
22. Therefore, iiiifiaiiy the respondent did not have any
right or title in respect of the schedule ”
respondent was in tmauthoxzizeci occupation
putting up a temporary structure. V
the said. prep-e11:y was trazasfetreii niiby Jvmepeiidneni
petitioner, though the respeiaeiezit no iifie i;he”jsa;i(1’* V
property. The ciear: “petitiqii1e1′ ought
to get the posseseiqxi jtirie _ ii regiiiaxized by
gfitfiflg 5516 iiexne f1′(}131i the
Municipality /– was set apart
for amount paid
under: the peijtioner appiied. to the
Sager iviiirtue of i:’.x.l’3 the petitioner get
the 1iii’.;ir2_as xiive-ii” as’: pifissessien of the seheduie premises
. * in her iiéfiie, which eciocument is not adverted to
eourt. The following documents axe also
reieizant. context of petitioner’s title. b1x.P4 is the
endometiient issued by ‘l’Mf_’:, Sager to the petitioner. which
“if that the petitioner is the orwnei” of the schedule
iémperty and t:’:x.i’-5 is the assessment extract of the
schedule property while bix.Pf> is the Payment Receipt whicfi
also reveals the name of the pefitioner, while t:}x.P’? is the
/r
22
receipt issued by the Municipality with Iegard to thhe-ejsite
valuation in respect of the petition
pursuant to iesmanee of sale certificate.
endorsement given by the Municipality’ to
of khatha in favour of the petiti0uc1afl;__ to:
tax Vment made by the V ‘iitioner to e
respect of the schedule premieues; to ‘F391 cleariy
support the titie ofthe premises.
23. HO\VCV_’;51;¢”:§}:,fi’ip i’3Sf7Qfidef1if\Ps”‘V.”eaee is that he had
const:’uctet§ 31 bearing Sy.No.i2.() of
Sannatmane of the express zecitals in
i:}x.k’2 eyéeetited fig; zeeporident in favour of the petitioner,
the 4’.;’eSpo11dent contend ottzerwise. in feet Ex.R3 to
the tax pend” receipts issued by the
19?(} to 1989 and the notices fiom
fiom 19″i’3 to 1976 clearly reveal the name of
the fiietitioner in the same, though according to the
._I”es_fiiI1deut, the payment was made by the respondent and
Wife and son. 11:: fact b}x.R2 is the i~£’i'{3 extract of
Sy.No.’2{} of Sannamane village which discloses that the
property was awuired by the Municipality fitom the Revenue
2/,.
Depmment under whose jurisdiction it was treated as gomal
land. But the name of the respondent is not titnmd in the
said document either in the title txoiders column’
coiumn with Iegaxd to p0$$£;’:S$iDI}.. However, _
of the eazid. property by the ..
l1}x.R21 and R22 which are
deceased respondent to ti:i€,fV1t}1]iCi’;VSa,fi’t§’ for ,
to 1957 aiso reveal that the £é$3;:ondex;i~hg§ga–“an «gz1teres: in
the seheclule h’,x.P2 and
subsequently, the Under the
circumstances’ by___f31e respondent with
tee ._pef:ifioner viz–a-viz the schedule
pmmises; nv111:Ve’:1aai):i’e.- the trial court rightly heid En
ragga: ef ti1e”pei:itioner and the Ievisionui court committed
the eaigi issue against the petitioner
a:’1_d .§i’ie:egeeing the eviction petition.
3; “a reading of the above documents it is
established that the petifsioner has supported her contention
“ii her title to the schedule yremieee with the help of
‘::loeumentar_v evidence but the respondent though eieuiee
title of the petiitioner to the said premises has not
/9/’
24
corroborated his evidence with any documentary evideiiee. in
fact, no contra evidence by Way of documents.«..iLaVtie–heen
prociuced by the xeependent to dis~e1aim the pr§i1a::’a:c&i«§e”t::i+_iq’e
of the petitioner in respect of
‘rue. initial title in the Sagar Munié-:Vpa:’3.;ft§ isttafiix-med
respondent also who has not his”
name. Under the ci1eun;stan:ce–eV:it–ie’*he1d tliat..t11€t:§petitioner
is the titie h-alder of the finding of
the i€evi:=3i<)3;xa1 (3:)_.11zt while the
finding of
25. flfiev tn the existence of
§ea:1£ilo:i*:i’–:t’e’11aV11:1:VVVbetxaree1;1 the parties. It is the
case of petitioxterbt the Iespondcnt is a tenant in
– eéehex.i.Lue premises with effect from 1.1.1934
‘ xiii rent. of 143.150/– and that the respondent paid
‘rents nip £3112. 1937 and not face: January 1933 and the
ttherveafter. According to the petitioner, the Iespondent
., Aeoaeizriviseted a roof on the srzzileduie premises by removing the
roof and that he has also constructed a shed on the
V’ ” ‘haeiceitie of the house. lnitialiy a notice was issued on
30.6.1986 regarding arrears of rent and the same was
/9»
25
tepiieci by stafing that respondent was not a tenan.t___ of the
schedule premises. The respondent had also a(§’:i1i§9_’£i;3ei:.”‘.1;11at
he had removed the mating and had put uyéz
and aiso constructed entire stmetme .
permission or consent of the ‘mg fai
court in the absentre of ._evide’13ce 5to the
respondent having in and the
respondent net Lttgstth possession of the
premises in any of PW. I that the
respon<ie1:4;f._.:visA:.§is§r1g::'i11 as a tenant
would
2e. ';'f;cbasis of i:3x.P2:, P3, P5, P6, P7',
P9 to P21-4_ 19 held that the petitioner was the
titilcee-holder vthat the respondent was in arrears of rent
. tiantisxy 1988 and that the schedule premises was
. .fo'e.'ijonafide use amt socupation of the petitioner
the petition under Section 2l(}_){aj, (I1) and (C)
A. §z§fhiie"tiismissi11g the petition under Section 2i(1)(j).
As far as the nature of possession of the respondent in
'T respect of the setzwule premises is concerned ans with
regard to there being landlord tenant xekationship between
/9/«
2:13
the parties, the evidence of the Witnesses would havteto be
looked into before answering on the said issue.
the petitioner the respondent took: on the' b
premises fiotn 1.1.1934 on a moztthtjft :nnt._otT'Rs!i–5):Uj4'
the lease commenced from _ the even; Anaonth
ended on the East day of the"'v»nionth. Whats
1988 up to end of Jtliitix fesponctent"£1ss bmn in
arrears of rent to an extent' response to the
said £egai is produced as
.i:lx.£'17'. t'3§.g' sass of the respondent on
93?. Iespohdent, the petitioner had
no right, «.resfi2ect of the schedule premises
and that not a tenant of the petitioner;
ti1a.t_§:"'i'_"Vi?:€;. resioonsient vtas in possession of the premises for
, nearly 'fi1"t_§% hence there was no question of the
over vacant possession of the premises
totflze While on the other hand denying the
exoeunen of Ex. P12, it was also contended by the respondent
'' Vin-et.«A'«despite the execution of I:)x.i~'iz by the respondent in
% V. invent of the petitioner, since the respondent continued to be
in possession of the schedule premises, the resyrondernt had
fig,
2'?
perfected his title to the schedule pmmisos by virtue of the
doctrine of adverse possession.
28. From the material on rmxd What has to _
is the oral evie:£c::t::.e of the pmijios u
estabfisiament of iandiord tcnant:=_:1’e1at:of1S12i;.i …Eetiav€%f:3)7
parties, in the sense that while it éstab§iSvi!§££i _V ihét fi1e_* ,
petitioner had acquired title Q2-Af ‘ schedule
premises by way of ~”r::sp-on§Aie£1t entering
into pooseasion with a tenant is not
supported by” Further the case
of the “” “:’w1§;;ndé§;t- igzhai am’ 1- 14.7.1957 the
respolfécicixt in possession of the
premises az1£1’voI1 ‘béisis adverse possession has been
by tho” «rzzsyondent. But the said stand of the
‘ i”s.:_1ot correct as it: is clear that the respondent
A ‘ci–i:;:–. :A:«;$£ have any titic to the scheduic site and that
‘was executed by the respondent in favour of the
., ‘petiffiofior only, possession was handed over to the petitioner,
“7~”;é$’ féspondent could not convey any title to the petitioner.
‘ VV This Woulti prima facie support the contention of the
petitioner that after petitioner had taken possession from the
/E»
28
respondent in the year 1967, the respondent entered into
posmesien of the premises with effect from 1.1. 1984.-‘=::_n1y as,
a tenant as petitioner has also stated in his evidenee- as
per i§Zx.P2 possession was given by the msgj-eéndengt 4_
petitioner and thereafter the mother-.-§n§laiv’ iieilfiioizexe ‘ L.
i.e.. mother of i~’W.1 reeideci in {he
her death, the respondeni flag. inihleted ns
respect of the premises in has not
pntrciuced any evi£iei1v;;.i:.,t§«:~Lh What capacity he
continued to Ieaifie eenecution of l:}x.l-*2,
wherein fl’ of the premises in
the pefifioner. The assertion of the
re5pon d”t:n t in document at i:*3x.Pi?. and the
ot,t_ief exhibite in favour of petitioner.
» ,:PiS’ __the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, the
2 under Section 381) does not envzsa’ ge
o\u§’nereAhi’p”.i11 respect of the premises under the tenancy ass a
V’ ‘A .iandleird who is not a owner of premises is entitleci to seek
evietion of the tenant. But the creation and existence of
landlord tenant relationship is a sine qua non for the court to
assume jurisdiction unéer the Rent Uontroi Act. In the
/2»
absence of tenancy between the parties, a person eaimot
maintain a petition for eviction under the Act. Wiiezefeie,
While answering on the two issues the trial aesziierede ”
in favour of the petitioner not only on. ,t;i:ge qi;ieeiieiiV 132! u
the schedule pzemises, but also
zelatrionship of landlord * L’
However, the revisional court was a
bonafide dispute as to :§fie*~v.pe’t:ifiener in respect of
the scheduie premises anti “eaeis ciieznisseci
the eviction without going into
the other feieigieiashjp of ilandiord and
tenant teeii as on the entitlement of
the pefifibzger te of the zespondent. if the
revisifsuai. ceuzt ‘Had considered landlord and tenant
– . VVV’betweefi”‘fi1e parties in the first instance and en
being a reiaiienship wouid have answered
the Qther,~iee11es, would have been considered. However, in
– tf3.£’:’: abeeeee of an answer as to the existence cf relationship
and tenant between the parties by the xevisienai
and the bouafide dispute as to title being answered in
the afixmafive and not taking up the other issues for
eonsiderafion on the gzrzmnd. that they eiid not survive for
I’
consideration and thereby diemissing the evictie-n peiitien is
not the correct approach of the revisional <:x:3u1't. .V
30. As far as the denial of title by the tena1’xtA4_:isVv u
the dispute, not a complicated be
court under the Act. A question refgaxiiiag ajspfite bf
complicated one or not is a quesfioflefv-Ia fsmrven fact.
The nature of the fa«é;iV:e’V_ tefsiieh a plea,
geuuiness of the plea, ‘ the parties and
various be taken into
e<)nsfieI'aii'e1;..'t3:3%»L" it is; {band that there is a
bouaffidevdieéjptei tJ1e._"V1ii;:éii:tie:3 as to the existence of
suehvVvi'eI¥é1€1oi1s.le:i};§» Abe parties, the court exercising
special decide the question. For
where a~–sale deed is required to be pmvw in the
V title of the landlord, the same has to be pmved
.' bgéditxe along with the attestore of the sand' deed
also, £23211 eviction proeeedinge, a tenant cannot question the
2 » tiageaetion between the landlord and the third party, which
Adghdalé conferred em on the iandierd. in fact, the validity of the
H tide to the property where registered sale deed ie in existence
/L/r
and which has not been challenged in any suit canpot be
questioned by the tenant.
31. As far as adjudication of the dispgiie
la11<:iiord~tenant reiationsiinip is VV
Rent Control Act has not describeai fir
form of creation of a of ..t.e§11ant.'V.L'
However. in the abse;_1oe of being..a~-.;g#;g;§e,3rd»tenant
reiationship, the pmeiefififihs u Act would
not apply. Uxxder the ':§_.§er;erai iaw i.e., the
Traxasfer of mode of czeating a
reiationshiipe. evouki have to be taken
into cr:0nséde;;¢ei§iOi;«£ij.e" relationship is: disputed, the
Rent id upon the relationship and pass
appfifbfiiiate oiiieie cannot simpiy direct the parties to
ye eéigtjgggreiy because there is denial of ia11dlord»tenant
"the tenant. A simpie denial of mlationship
ca,i;"m0t..__' '<i1}…<;fi: the jurisdiction cf the court: under the Act
"the simplest thing Wmzid be for a party to deny the
A' jefisfienehip of iandbrd and tenant. In such circumstance,
% {he court oonsfituted under the Rent Act has to determine
the reiatienship of landlenii and tenant The denial of
/k/r
3;?
relationship by a tenant should be examined by the court by
looking into the record to find out whether suei3H(i,:efl.ia.l is
bonafide. As the said issue is one of fact Iequiiiegf
to establish the reiationship. the que-stiQ:1_._Viof,VreI§Il:ie13etxfip”b
between Landlord and tenant Jbe as
issue and thereafter the other isslieeiihave
‘I’he court ales has to find the
the tenant is untenabi1eV_or as to
Whether the Rent lie exercising its
jurisdiction jurisdkziion of the
court cannot be invoked unless.
there’ landlord and tenant, but
mere does. not invoke juriediefion of
the tinder the Act and the same may’ be
. ., A as issue or tried along with other
i_eeuee’ upon the facts and eireumetaxieee of the
” V””l’he eitations referred to at the Bar are as feiiews. In
ease of Pratapsingh & Others Vs. Jaibunnisa Hegum &
‘T another reported in Aiifi 1989 liarnataka 70 (DB) it was held
that the plea as to title of the iandiord, if found to be
/9»
33
bonafide and complicated, peeuits in ref1’a:i11i:ng of the
exercise «of jurisciiction under the Act and therefore,
plea genes to the met of the juxisdietion. in suche;”e’ae–e’:s. %
be within the judicial discretion of the V’
to put forth a contention even ¥:¥f1btt. Cj<)ii§eii1;i03:1 *w'aeM.g1o§,
properly argued in the Lower, za ¥'
raised in the pleadings and feiefirant in the
light of the eireumstaeeejs ._pzimé'.1 fae}2ve support
the pica. '!'i1erefcHe, the juxisdiefion
to adjudicate Laudlom if 01:1 the
material an be given and so aiso a
giver! £31;-._i$ei1e by {he trial court can be
corrected" at "t he e-If . re.vision
gzi the Mohammad Ibrahim «SE Oihem Vs.
V'1§1£z?1;1i;v,<§bé§bi in 1963(2) Mysore Law Journal 25$} ii:
.iaae been.V'VNi1e_ii1Vthat whenever there is a complicated dispute
as 'to: title of the landlord or as to the existence of the
~ iteigaeney, the court functioning under the Act has pewer to
Ajefer the parties to a suit. In the said deeieiefi there was. a
serious dispute between the parties with regard to a saie
made in respect of the house preperty to the respondent
/$4.
therein and whether the first petifioner was a tenant under
the respondent. Under such circumstances
directed the parties to establish their rights in enjjeki
as they found it pessibie to do so in a prqpe_i*i§r .e
suit. In the instant case however,_ the ‘?_issue_
question of titie of the pet»1Tfi:’1_o11er”–xgi$.~–a–visj ” whtéfiixle
premises is not a eomplicate(‘i””~e:1Vr:i1e but
the Ieiatiouship betweetiighe jéisejizet at all by
the revisional court Whfle Vtiie on the iseue
is confirmed
34. {ii Viihe. ‘!€i£a&.t{;i7no¢;§:iié1″l§}as1ag*ir3ab Vs. Hasawwa
& Oihéfre Mysore 46:: it has been held
that the ‘§i:11cr__1;i{ji.fV1i’I’1g’~’bLi111cie1’ the Rent (,’4;mt;rol Act, 1961
«. haV$”3*.o:eett:le tJ:e”j1&_Ii3<1ic1:ional ilact naxaeiy the existence of
relationship between the parties and is
{:onn';jpeter§f.":oVA{tieej£ie even disputes relating :0 the titie of the
a that such disputes are net cenapiieated
V, absolutely essentiai to the decieioie. of the
ljaiieeicflonal fact. in the said. case Where the titie of the
to the piemises was questioned and the tenant set
up his mm titie as owner, it was heid that the dispuie
/'/~
35
relating to the title of the ianeiiortzi izmvoived the eemfifxcawd
questions of law and as eueh it was in the intereet. ef
the question to be settled in a pmperiy V’
not in a summary pmeeeding.
es. Whiie applying the abzive decisipiis to :tfie_:fs:1ets }:3r ‘t;1;e ‘ >
pxese-at case, the petitioner h2;e”«’to on the
basis of !:3x.P2 and ,th.at tflzetespondent
has not set upjtititi other hand has
admitted fxveis oceupafion of a
premises The said
plea, _ ¥;E”1veVV’eonte11ts of E:-r:.P’.»3 and P3.
the deuaeie »§§:en~m In above, would make it
apparent ti3e..’–ree§pe1″1sdent’s dispute reganiing the title of
V’ , tl*§e’A:’petiti:31;er V’i1″21ifenable and the respondent has also
that the said title vested with any other
‘pefeen, .””:€’:;?«§ii1Si{iCI’iBg the fact that the petitioner produced
};*}x.i”;3. }zt1<:i P23 apart fiem other documentary evidence, in
A f_"' Aejiier to prove her title in reepect of the seheduie premises
Vewould mean that the dispute raised by the reepondent
' regarding the petitioner's fitie to the premises did not involve
any cempiicated qaestien of fact since it is not the case {if
/3»
the respondent that the documents in quesfion partieiziarly
b}x.P'.3 and V3 were not valid documents. Hence "-22;
case where oompficated dispute as to 2
landiord [petitioner had to be refe3:red"to't.i.e1&e 16;
adjudication and the trio" ' 1 Court
finding on the petitioner's title.'
36. in the ease of !.do;izabfr’A Singh
reported in AIR 1999 that even
there is exe1;1seee:j’ in respect of a
scheduie not give to any
presu:ji§)tioIt.: of there being any
evidenee es to in What capacity the
respondent”-txade of the premises in question.
exeo”t1fion’ of Ex.P2, in my view, the trial court
‘ tees. -holdixxg that there existed relationship of
iaxhiditoreit vttenant between the parties. Since the
mxrieiofial has not adverted to this aspect of the matter,
2 .. i:.n’e- of the triai court on this aspect is oonsirieted and
confirmed.
For the aforesaid reasons, the revision petition is
aiiowed and the order of the revisionai oourt is set aside by
»/«~
H’
37
confirming the order of the trial 001111, Without any ordclj-as
to costs.
S/KVN*