IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 4"' DAY or-' OCTOBER 2o1"o§ BEFORE THE HON'BE_E HRRP No.252/2o1o;ANo MI§C. cvd_:g17o8a/do BETWEEN: V.Padmanabha Raju ' 4_ . Son of iate K.Veni<ataraj:}g 0' Aged 73 years, V so M/s Venkateshwar.a_ Fa_brica'to.-s,"«..f-,_ No.14, Roshafn bfagh Road, " V.V.Puram;;" _ A' » BangEaore~¥Su60._'C"_04. " ' «_ ' ---- Petitioner [By Sri K.P_oorrh.aoo~dha.4VF<ao, Adv.,] AND: A Smt; Laigshrtiidevarnnia Wif'e1:.of late C.Nag.a_ra1u, Atias Sréshachar, ' Aged 69v'ears..__ Re-sidinVg«..oa't ¥\jiroV,_1'4, Bangal'ore¥560 004. Roshan 'Bag hf=Road, V. V, Pu ram ,jI= This HRRP is filed under Section 46(1) of K.R.Act 'against the order dated 31.08.2010 passed in HRC " . _AIo.2o1/2oo9 on the file of the IX Additional Judge, Court of ...Respondent
Smalt Causes, Member, MACT~7, Bangalore, rejecting the
0037/
2
E.A.No.1 filed by the respondent therein under Section 43 of
K.R.Act read with Section 151 of cPC.& Misc. cw, £oi.._115i’-igiefc-,.
X n’1,:5’c..Ov[ H –.
This HRRPAcoming on for Adm~’_’si_O’nV”tyhis
day, the Court made the following: ‘ S
Q E D R
This revision petition is it
dated 3 1.08.2010 on the fi|e*o.f_. the’i)§v.”Additioh.aVi.. ¢;r”cii;«i’ii _
Judge, Small Causes the
application filed by Section 43 of the
Karnataka Rent_Act, it it
2. rd
3. Lgakshmidevamma initiated
under the provisions of
Section’ Sections 31(1)(a) and 31(3)
of the Karniataikahilen-t 1999, (hereinafter referred to as
on thewpremise that the petitioner herein is a
,V’Vte_na’i’:.rv’:;i.5j(v”tVh’§:-schedule property and has committed default
inupaymenft of rents. She also urged that the premises was
glet oiutito the respondent on the monthly rent of Rs.300/–,
~..V”vvh’i=ch is periodicaliy enhanced up to Rs.500/—.
4. The petitioner has resisted the proceedings firstiy,
(%@.,«
3
denying the jural reiationship of iandiord and tenant, and
secondly, disputing the iocus of the respondent to his
eviction. In this regard, the petitioner averr’ed4′..’,t~1ii’_;f:1iiI’ _.the
premises in question was owned by
he was a tenant. During his iife ‘t_ime_ha;d’exiecutedVttheflyviiii
i.e., Ex.R.5 bequeathing the.4__prop’e_rty in
daughter Smt B.N.Shantha ar”id’«_”:auth’o§riaing the
respondent herein irhus, Smt
B.N.Shantha Kumari the premises
being iegapteeiiihuindperé itfie the respondent
to collect or even seek
eviction. _A it ”
5.2T-h%e,.ieatfned” Court considered the materiai
prio5pos_iAtioVns in”-teheypvieadings and the evidence led by the
‘ V:partie~s,V’~viz,,§,”the respondent/landiord had produced twelve
“documents Vwvhich includes notice and reply notice sent to
the ..p”etitioner. Apart from the above documents, the
it ipet.itioner~tenant had produced repiy notice in which there
dis’ a ciear averment that after the demise of Nagaraj,
petitioner herein accepted the respondent as iandiord and
gitv
5
7. Section 43 of the Act is a provision which deals with
jurai relationship of landlord and tenant. The saidvprovricsion
reads thus:
43. Dispute of reiationship
tenant-
(1) Where in any proceeding.’lb’efor’e_t’t.hce.VVc’oiu«rt;’l~:a
contention is raised denying the~lrlexister’ice~ oig
relationship of lan_d’io_rd arid te.na-nt’:als”~ between
the parties it shali-._be lawful. for” the court to
accept the;-~docurnerit'”of “lease o’r~wh.ere there is
no document of. -«lease., a receipt of
acknow|edgem’en”t._ofispayment of rent purported
to be signed’ bygthxe -i’a.nd’lord*’ as prima facie
evidence of rel’atio_nshfi-p_ andzproceed to hear the
(2) “V’~’h–€?**3″*?’.. V .
(a) ._thie lease ‘p_”a,deovi~s oral and either party denies
—- .rgrelat’i’o;nsh’i~p and n-oreceipt or acknowledgement
_”of’,_-pacyrrient”o_f rent as referred to in sub—section
* (;1_)’ajbo_veispioduced, or
(b) ” in ‘the..jo.pIlnio’n«»of the court there Is reason to
su.spe.ct’rthercgenuine existence of the document
‘of, lease ‘or the receipt or acknowledgement of
payimggctcrgf rent,
–,_the*..cou._rt shall at once stop all further proceedings
‘ .._bef”ore._it and direct the parties to approach the
coir’fi*s.petent court of civil jurisdiction for declaration of
.their.- rig hts.
cThus”,v.i_t*is ciear that if there a document like a lease deed or
receipt, that has to be taken into consideration as
____5prima facie evidence establishing the relationship of landlord
air
6
and tenant. The very fact that in subsection (1) of Section
43 there is no reference to any title or the molderpand
manner of acquisition of title, a lease or rer’i’t”«’re.élé\\’pt”is
enough to determine relationship. The..pr_esent.::’c’ase’is”~__
much worse. The petitionerétienant
tenancy and he had not denied hvaying paid-3
respondent-landlord. On thleilovther is clear
admission in the has been
paying rents to the demise of the
original lan_d?l’o4rd1=stu’_,!’-lazgyarajllg demanded by the
resflonderitiw ‘.:en’h’an’ced. Hence, there is
estogpel _Besides, it must be noticed that
he is tr’y.in”gto’ Shanthakumari in terms of the
willwiide Eyenvhin Ex.R5, the testator has, in his
authorisvedllhis wife–respondent herein to collect
I o.t’fth’elVSch~’edule premises while ultimately bequeathing
hi-3, es_tate§?*to his daughter, Shanthakumari. Hence, the
., authorisation to receive rent is conferred through Ex.R5.
8. The next question is, whether a rent collector could
maintain eviction proceedings with limited right, as
§Q1»
7
contended by the learned counsel. The answer lies in the
definition of the word ‘landlord’ as incorporated iVn’i’,:S:eiction
3(e) of the Act which reads thus:
‘ “landlord” means a person who..f0’f”‘~tl1’eA_f.:”
time being is receiving ore’i.s_er§titled=(to ”
receive, the rent of any plremisyes, ‘wheth_er,;,_y A
on his own account or on”accou’nt o’f.oi-on ~ f
behalf of or for the: l:ienefit_of anyiothyer’ 1
person or as a t-rustee, giuavrdiavn
receiver for any othe.rl’p_erso’n._ or-‘who
would so receive the_.rent-or–.,t_o be” entitled
to receive the_4_’rent,_’ ifV_the_p,remises were
let to a tenant.” ‘ ‘ ‘
Thus, the tern1.__’landl’ord:?’:: blriifigg its sweep the
respondent’ ” ._un–..disputecllffwlfact that Ex.RS–will
makes..it.C_lear”tliiiil,the}-e:sAp’on:de_n.t is entitled to receive rent
by rn1a_kes’ tier”:V[‘a.nd–l.o”re§._:”und’er the definition referred to
above.
. E9; ‘fhe_ nextvualuestion is, whether the landlord can seek
.VVevictio:n«~..oi’iftheitenant under the provisions invoked by her.
mu’st.h~oltice that in the repealed provision of the Act of
x1;96.’t,’v..–for seeking eviction under Section 21 (1)(h), there
i’ a rider attached. While a bill collector/landlord could
ylseek eviction of the tenant on any other ground, it is only
atfiv
8
the land|ord~<:um–owner who was entitled to seek eviction
under Section 21 (1)(h). But that enactment vhasrsbeen
repeaEed by the Act of 1999 which contains no"'sL:ich'__:ri'd_ers
or fetters to the right exercisabie by the Ea_nd.lV_ojrd_ <:.iefiin'edV
under Section 3 (e) of the Act.
10. For the reasons diiscigssed a’boye,__I: doVV’:n’ot~find any’
infirmitvi legal or otherwise,i-i~nV:..t_h.e”0rder “of-theiitrial court
in rejecting of the appiic’a_ti’o’ne..f§’i»e:dtenant. However,
on merit, tenant’ to contest the
proceedings revision petition is
itIV’i:sc..v”§Cv|.17088/10 for stay of
the rejiected.
safi
V ” aaaaa Eixégé
PB«,!vg_h’* . it