{"id":196952,"date":"2009-04-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-04-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-renukamma-vs-sri-ramachandra-bhatta-on-24-april-2009"},"modified":"2016-03-01T22:56:41","modified_gmt":"2016-03-01T17:26:41","slug":"smt-renukamma-vs-sri-ramachandra-bhatta-on-24-april-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-renukamma-vs-sri-ramachandra-bhatta-on-24-april-2009","title":{"rendered":"Smt Renukamma vs Sri Ramachandra Bhatta on 24 April, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Smt Renukamma vs Sri Ramachandra Bhatta on 24 April, 2009<\/div>\n
Author: B.V.Nagarathna<\/div>\n
2\n\nS} 0 LATE SR! RAMAC-HANDKA\nBHATTA, MAJOR\n\nRIAT VINOBHA NAGAR,\nBEHIND BHASKAR' GARAGE\nSAGAR SHIMOGA DISTRECT.\n\n4 SM!' LAKSHMAMMA\nw\/L} 1,;s;r:.~; sun RAMAL'-IMIANDRA\nBHATTA, MAJOR\nR\/AT' VINOBHA NAGAR,\n\nBEHIND BHASKAR GARAGE\nSAGAR SHIMDGA DISTRICT.   \n\n  \n\n(By Sri : s v PHAKASH, ADV] \n\n'mus _:r:;e.:s;p:':j,_v_;_+*.::.;;s;:;>__ U13-._\"1;.\u00a3v5 CFC AGAINSI' '1'm::\nORDER D;r?'ED1a::24.3;:2<}o6Ti'.'\u00a7PA33Et;e_ IN RR.NC).?\/2000 on\nTim F'IL_EV  1I\u00a7f\u00e9#i2I,..'\u00a3:1'3Tg1::'?I' JUDGE, SHIMOGA,\nALLOW\u00a5'NG"i"HI3 F?E*;('I"$.{_{;iPs{"PE'}'i?3'\u00a5C}N AND SETTING ASIDE\nTHE oRD_gRV":3s::*Ex3:'\u00abv%._ 1a__.1:2-.19\u00a79 PASSED BY THE\nm<L.c.:vi1, J.U\u00a3)<.a'r\u00a3,'\u00ab{;;i.}{}'L).N;*},' VSSAGAR IN H:<c:..No. 3\/1993,\nPARTLY Am,ow1N'z:; 'i"'HE. PETITION FILED U\/S 21 (1) (a) (11)\n3:, (9) OF KRC" 5.11:': 12~e;2R'~--EV1{':r10N.\n\nV.   'pr-ixition "gavixlg been heard and reserved for\n\n   i\ufb01fagarathrza J. pronounced the foiiowiug:\n\nQRDER\n  A'  rtzvision pe\ufb01tion is \ufb02ied by the landiady\n\n-- cZh:a.'l\u00bb'1eiigi11g the czercier dated 24.3.2006 made in Icvisicm rent\n\nT " "R6,?\/2000 by the Pr]. Disiz\ufb01ct Judge at Chitxaciurga.\n\nV Uriginaiiy, the pe\ufb01tianer herein had \ufb01led ki.\u00a7<.C.N0.3]93\n\n55..\n\n\n\nbefore the Prldljivil Judge {dr.1)n.), Sagan The eame was\na\ufb02crwed by 0n:\u00a3er dated 10.12.1999 against Whieixretttae\n\nIespondent herein had preferred Revisicm Rent;"'No\u00a7Zf. \n\nand by the impugnw erder, the eviction.  we  \n\niamiiady was dismissed by  Zt\ufb01iejj. \u00a3i:Yi%\u00a7ioIt \nBeing aggrieved by the said orzier, the .L_atnd1ad\u00a7rv5E3,aeVp\u00abfef\u00a3\u00a71ff%e::iV  *'\n\nthis revision petition.\n\n2. For the sake {if Vteomrgxgieneeit  parties shall be\n\nreferred ta in tenne of t$1e:i':x'* ."ir:ef:;1T\u00a3'3  court.\n\n3. The  -the owner of the schedule F\npIemise\u00a7\u00a7'"V\ufb01iegji:.the  petition under Section 21(3), (\u00a31),\n(3) and V'{Q)"   the Karnataka Rent Controi\n\nAct, 1961'  before the Prl.Mu11si\ufb01 at Sagar.\n\n    to A'  origina\ufb01y, the respondent had<\/pre>\n
‘ \u00a7;i1autt3_di\u00e9sc1:iI3*._eonst1ucted a thatched residential house in<\/p>\n
.  premises and was living there with his<\/p>\n
fantilgf   site belongng to the Towii Municipal (.3.o1mci{,<\/p>\n
 ., Sager. V””i’h.at the respondent who was working as a peer; in<\/p>\n
*V1V:\u00a3e”i\u00a7!even11e Department was acquainted with the husband<\/p>\n
V’  bf the petitioner, one N.(}.Keriyappa, who was working as a<\/p>\n
Revenue Surveyor in Sagar. That due tr: urgency and<\/p>\n
93..\n<\/p>\n
necessity of money, the reeponde\ufb01t offered to seil away the
\nge\ufb01\ufb01on schedule housese to the petitioner for a etxtn of<\/p>\n
Rs.4()\u00a3)\/~ on behalf of himself and his minor sone._et1\u00a7i- <\/p>\n
deed 14.’?.19\u20ac>7 was regstered on 1E3.’?.i9?f)f’?V’z,aV,t:i<:tK<\/p>\n
petitiozler was put in possession of'"the& ssixae, 'ti%'4w:aefaleo<\/p>\n
mentioned in the saie deed that ttie <\/p>\n
sale cer\ufb01fieate of the petitic-:1\u00bb  site  V<\/p>\n
the Town Municipal Council.  'and tt1\u00e92t..theEpetitioner
\nhad paid the full    _Rs.400\/ — to the<\/p>\n
reepondent in respect.-"of . the   property.<\/p>\n
'I'ha.t   '-*t.*1ev;Saga:* Town Municipality
\nfor .*sa._:}e'  eef\ufb01\ufb01eate in the year 1968 and had
\nobtained   dated 1e.1.1:-ma. That after the<\/p>\n
 traneaetton, the respondent had taken the pe\ufb01hon<\/p>\n
  on lease from the petitioner on 1.1.1984 on<\/p>\n
  Rs. 1501- and that he had defaulted in the<\/p>\n
payment of tents since the year 1988 and that ti\ufb02 30.6. 1992<\/p>\n
the rent " due was to the tune of Rs.7,950\/~. That the<\/p>\n
  –..resv;noz1de11t had altered the house’ from thatched house into<\/p>\n
VA   __aE Mangaiore tiled roo\ufb01ng house without the consent of the<\/p>\n
pe\ufb01tioner for his comzenienee, ‘l’hat the respondent had got<\/p>\n
eieetri\ufb01eation to the petition scheduie premises Without the<\/p>\n
9\u00bb,<\/p>\n
consent of the petitioner and that he had eon_st_;x*ucted<\/p>\n
another house of two ankanas of Mangaiore <\/p>\n
house Without the eensent of the petitione\ufb01 <\/p>\n
retirement of the pe\ufb01tionefs huseand the}?   stag’ . Z <\/p>\n
in the schedule premises  t:3=_j3;ezaefdfe,V Tithe<\/p>\n
s<::he<;iu1ed house. Tixat tE1eVte11a_Vncy"w.as    L'<\/p>\n
midnight on 31.8.1992 and t|i1ei:';esp\u00a75n4::leI'1t  no right
\nto continue in the  hence, sought for
\neviction ofthe 1fesp011(ie.nt ._  'v \u00ab<\/p>\n
4. in fespe\ufb01lse    by the trial court, the<\/p>\n
x’es13c*\u00bb:11::iee’:A1iA’ filed his statement of objections<\/p>\n
‘denyin g_t’i::e “tile petitioner in the schedule<\/p>\n
garemises,   that the thatched house had<\/p>\n
   2,eon’vertedH  a tiied roo\ufb01ng house and that the<\/p>\n
   –  to the Revenue Department of<\/p>\n
  Village and not to the muzaieipality, the<\/p>\n
mspex\ufb01ent denied that he had said. the scheduke property to<\/p>\n
A  _\u00a3t:e’*\u00ab_pet:itioner on 14.?.i9f:.~s’?’. He aiso stated that the ‘l’aw:;1<\/p>\n
 had no right to execute or issue saie certificate<\/p>\n
in respect of a ievenue site which was situated in<\/p>\n
Sannamane Village. it was also contended as false that the<\/p>\n
is .\n<\/p>\n
J’!<\/p>\n
RWJ and another witness as RWXZ and they got marked<\/p>\n
1:3xs.i<2\u00bb1 to W25 and cbsed their side.<\/p>\n
E). 011 the basis 0f the above material on    4_<\/p>\n
court \ufb02amed fo\ufb02owing points for iii:-:'-:  "
\ni} is them any b<;::a'*\ufb01eie   :\n<\/p>\n
I’\u20acSj{;:i,’s”””, of the petition 5se}:i\u00e9::iuiee.’E$ej;*.–veen
\nthe pax\ufb01es? ‘  ‘ ‘ V <\/p>\n
Does the i:\u00a7\u00e9!itio:_if\u00a3e1j_  le\ufb01tilord
\nand tenant ‘ mia\ufb01exi\u00e9iiig\u00e9.  hersseif<\/p>\n
andmp res:{3d11d;e;i:1t’\u00a7~Ae.V:’e\u00bb.’ I .. ”<\/p>\n
iii)   groves that the
\n_ fb\u00a7\u00a7%\u00a7ro;:1iuLi.e:1f.$\u00a7”a.;e  arrears of rent and if<\/p>\n
‘ . st\u00bb th&f:e’tlie\u00a7\u00a7_:TVizafze not paid the arrears of
\n rent   months from the date of
\nxveL’ei_Vp’tV of notice Without sufficient reasons<\/p>\n
 pr cau\u00e9\u00e9\u00e9?”\n<\/p>\n
  i\u00e9i} the petitioner requires the pae\ufb01tion
\n‘ feeheduie piemises fer her bana\ufb01de use
\nand oocuaptiotn?\n<\/p>\n
by is partial evie\ufb01on is per\u00e9missibie?
\nC) To whom greater hantlshiip will be
\neauseti? I<\/p>\n
v} [Jones the peijtiesxaer proves that the<\/p>\n
petition scheciuie premises is reaaonable<\/p>\n
\u00a34.\n<\/p>\n
and bona\ufb01de required for immediate
\npurpose of demolition land reconstructiologee.
\nalleged in the petition?  ”  l\n<\/p>\n
vi) Does the petitioner proves
\nrespondent has e1~eei:etl\u00ab. a\ufb02
\nstruet11re Without the   <\/p>\n
petitioner on t.i1e*petit:iol1’1.  l  3<\/p>\n
vii) Does the  “pmvee *t.hat.J\u00a7 the
\npetition   not used
\nfor the purpose for’  was let for a<\/p>\n
of  ‘  ‘<\/p>\n
 _  ‘ex h\u00a3i\u00a3;:ezde5efldee1~ee:!
\n\u00bb:~h\u00a2omnm;e Issue Nos.i, iv(b), v and vii in<\/p>\n
the _negatf.ze  ils.51l1.eT’l Nos. ii,  ivia} and Vi in the<\/p>\n
 ‘~   llisse-.e”No. iv{c) in favour of the petitioner and<\/p>\n
‘ allowed the eviction petition under Section<\/p>\n
“i3.1′(e1l}(al_)l,   (0) of the Act and directed the respondent to<\/p>\n
haosti level; vacant possession of the petition schedule<\/p>\n
2 .. lplremiees within three months from the date of the order.<\/p>\n
U ‘ii’. Being aggrieved by the said order, the legal<\/p>\n
representatives of the respondent \ufb01led Revision Rent<\/p>\n
No.7 [2000 before the P121. \u00a3)istric.t Judge, Shimoga. by order<\/p>\n
.3\u00bb-\n<\/p>\n
daft:-xi 31.8.2002 the revision petition was held to have,<\/p>\n
abated. Being aggrieved by the said mj\ufb01icr,<\/p>\n
W.P.No.34f-9&2] 2009 was fiied before this court and *-3136*’<\/p>\n
was allowed and the same was allowed and  ‘<\/p>\n
remanded back to the mvisional  :\u00a2_he_ ‘A V’<\/p>\n
pa1’1:1’t’;s, the mvisionai vmurt Ira”  <\/p>\n
its conSi\u20ac\u00a3eratio11:\n<\/p>\n
i) is there any bona\ufb01\u00a7;i\u00e9 . \u00a7ii3\u00a7_1ute.’as_:Vto the
\ntitle of tiTl6.._’ IEi31\u20aci3;%\u00a7\u00a3i\u00a7{. V  as to the
\nexistence: of   ‘parties?\n<\/p>\n
ii) Wfie\ufb01igi’ the  }S1*::~v.t?.\u00e9 that he is<\/p>\n
  the respondents
\n‘– ‘1:t,”V3. ‘.\u00a3,~  Act?\n<\/p>\n
iii)  *.–%{VhefiV1′:::  vhse\u00ab…’~*’LV;)ctitioner is: entitled for
\nV V evi\u00e9tim; of the respondents from the<\/p>\n
ipe\ufb01tioxl premises :1] 3.2 1(1)(i1) of the Act?<\/p>\n
  the petitioner is entitled for
\n~ _v\u00e9vietion of the respondents 11\/ s. 21(1)(a’) of
\nthe Act?\n<\/p>\n
A ; fv) Whether the impugned order passed by
\nH the kaagmed Civii Judge cajis for
\ninte\ufb01\u00e9rencn at my hands?\n<\/p>\n
vi) To What order? T <\/p>\n
The txibunal anewered point Nos. 1 and <\/p>\n
a\ufb01irma\ufb01ve and point Nos. 2 to 4 as not  four <\/p>\n
consideration and by an order dated 24.3.2UUa$:’_aii6xsed tee” * ‘V<\/p>\n
‘r<\/p>\n
revision p-ention and dismissed {he evieiiont Zpe\ufb01tienii’-Q1′<\/p>\n
petitioner. Being aggrieved .$c33r..__ti1e  order!’  x<\/p>\n
has pI’Cf\u20acI’i’B\u20aci this revision  _V<\/p>\n
8* i have heard   learned counsel
\nfor the petit:ioner  counsel for
\nthe   ”\n<\/p>\n
9.  _t\u00ab  zed  for the petitioner, the
\nrevisidnai .eeu3’\ufb01   in dismissing the eviction<\/p>\n
petition o’n”-the  there was no land1ord-tenant<\/p>\n
 ‘~  I’\u20aci\u00a7.}i5i03’i1h$Iiip. ‘1’netv\ufb011e\u00ab’documents pmeiueed by the petitioner<\/p>\n
   to the house are the original sale deed<\/p>\n
‘ezeeented   deceased respondent in her favour and the<\/p>\n
 sale eert:L\ufb01f eate executed by the Municipality at bag’ er in<\/p>\n
” .. xrespectwof the site and the assessment and khatha extracts,<\/p>\n
 prinla facie establish title of the petitioner over the<\/p>\n
u  seheduie pm-perry. No evidence by way of documents were<\/p>\n
pmduced by the respondent with regent! to there being titie<\/p>\n
\/$4\u00bb<\/p>\n
it<\/p>\n
in favour of any other person with regard to the eohedme<\/p>\n
property. In fact the oontents of l:5}x.P2. wox\ufb01gi ~ it<\/p>\n
apparent that the site initially did not belong   <\/p>\n
parties, but subsequently, the pe\ufb01\ufb01oner  t:i::tle?o\u00a7rs.’:r b<\/p>\n
the same and hence the tespon\u00e9eiag  notoeny <\/p>\n
of the petitioner. Merely  the ha\u00e9i pald  V<\/p>\n
tax for some period woujld not that the respondent was
\nthe owner of the   Under the
\ncircumstances _:he__  of the revisional
\ncourt be   the triai court he<\/p>\n
10. “Pee eont1n;\u00ab..i\u00a7:.i\u00e9’  on behalf of the respondent<\/p>\n
that he Wee\u00bb. in posseeeion as an unauthorized occupant and<\/p>\n
   was soki on 4.7.1967 by ii}:-z:.!’.2., he<\/p>\n
‘  the possession. He has not paid any rents<\/p>\n
“3:o”ti1e  that Ex.P’.:5 is not a valid document in the<\/p>\n
eye of  and that the revisionai court was justz\ufb01ed’ in<\/p>\n
 ., A’ that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant<\/p>\n
 thereby dismissing the eviction petition which does not<\/p>\n
 for any intezference in this revision petition.<\/p>\n
%\u00bb<\/p>\n
11. Having regard to the submission made by thC.jii1″\u00a3;l1’nCd<\/p>\n
counsel on both side, the only point that  <\/p>\n
oonsiczierattion is as to Whether the Ievisioziai  % was V’ <\/p>\n
justzi\ufb01ed in dismissing the ev”icji6i1’*  ‘     b<\/p>\n
petitioner httrein.\n<\/p>\n
12. From the material on      dfligspufae that
\ninitially neither the  title to
\nthe schedule property  by both
\nsides that thy’:  t)\u00a2i’t2>1.:tigt*–:c:i_A\u00ab::i’c’i.”‘tL\u00a5:_.\u00a7o\u00a7’crnment and that
\nthe   possession of the site
\n(Hagar   put up a thatched
\nhouzg\ufb01j into a tiled roof. It is also<\/p>\n
not in di\ufb01jpxjte that  is a sale certi\ufb01cate issued by the<\/p>\n
 V.   :f\u00a7'[uxj;icip$.\ufb01’q,r…inT\u00ab’favour of the pmzitioner herein, though<\/p>\n
‘  ‘d\u00e9eiimcnt is not admitted by the respondent.<\/p>\n
It-‘..,__ ’15ixe::L};}et3l\ufb01oner has iet in evidenca of her husband as<\/p>\n
 PW. 1″  the basis of pa\u00e9wcr of attomay produced as \u00a7:)x.P1.<\/p>\n
 Agtg\u00e9ldmga to her the schedule property origlualiy belonged to<\/p>\n
V.  {he Town Muzxicipality and that the respondent had<\/p>\n
cozmizucted a shed unauthorjzmiiy. He said the same<\/p>\n
property to the petitioner i.e., only the oonsuncted portion;<\/p>\n
%<\/p>\n
that PW. 1 was at the relevant point of time Working in the
\nLand Acquisition Office of Sharavathi Project and tiiat the<\/p>\n
szespondent was working as Peon in the said <\/p>\n
respondent at that point of time expxessed.
\nseii the house and proposed    V’Vl’h’ai 631 V
\n14.7’. 196′? the document was  153?.\n<\/p>\n
was registered for a considegfi\ufb01ipn 51′  of”.<\/p>\n
Rs. 150] ~ was paid on ;4.7. \u00abthat e.’s13.3:;:. pf R$.2\u00a3O(}j–
\nwas paid at the time of .1:5.:.’?_.19\u20ac)7 and that a
\nsum of R350; w\u00a78.~gg. Fae ”  ‘V obtaining sale<\/p>\n
eex1;i\ufb01c.ate    the said pmrperty.\n<\/p>\n
A On    gave mssession of the<\/p>\n
pI0perty”‘–te *f.heVV”;geiiiV1\ufb01iu1\u00a7e;7 ‘on regtistxation of the document<\/p>\n
 is  Vas \u00a7\u00a7x.}’2. Thereafter Sager Municipality<\/p>\n
 ‘certi\ufb01caie to the petitioner which is marked as<\/p>\n
 .e’3:”.__P’,3  ii-tiie khatha endersement issued by the<\/p>\n
R\/1″i}.D(iCTx\u00a7’jj.)\u20acili;\u00a3:j”AiS produced at Ex.P4 and the site assessment<\/p>\n
 xextxaei.-is at  and the demand’ no\ufb01ce is at Ex\ufb01e, the
\n”   receipts are at I:’;x.P?. The endorsement issued by<\/p>\n
 President ef the Municipality a\ufb02er change in khatha is at<\/p>\n
b3x.P’8. Six tax paid imipte are p3:v.:)duce(;i at i:Zx.}’9 to P14.<\/p>\n
PW.1 retired from government service and the same is<\/p>\n
$5<\/p>\n
pmved by i:}x.l-‘I5 which is a eer\ufb01\ufb01eate and the <\/p>\n
order is at I:}x.P1f).\n<\/p>\n
14. According to PW.1 on 1.1.1934 respp:\u00a7\u00a3:is;;aai”_eg;\u00bbg\u00a7k <\/p>\n
premises on a monthly mat of  ‘fill 598″?<\/p>\n
respondent paid the rents; reg1:jia19I3r,% huej_oA:si1’i:>53ee1oe:3ei:ljs\u00ab’–<\/p>\n
defaulted in the payment of  PW’. 1~.1\ufb01aS,$;i_t  Vpoint of<\/p>\n
time posted at Hegadadevana”Ko’}e  ta1eijig”ad;zantage of
\nhis absence, the  thatched poof
\ngpremjeee intotez.    shed in the back
\nportion of   of the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
011 ~    Iegardjng the arrears
\nof  es   vacant posseseion of the<\/p>\n
pmmises \u00e9\u00a7i;d ‘\u00a7.he’V’acok:1oie\u00e9*ledgment of service of notice is at<\/p>\n
   the ‘gem copy of the notice is pttxiueed ai<\/p>\n
    ”\n<\/p>\n
  to PW} in the absence of any other<\/p>\n
 premises. the schedule premises is required tor the xesidence<\/p>\n
A {f  ti<_1e petitioner and that the family would faoe the greater<\/p>\n
hardship if the schedule pxemiees is not vacated as they<\/p>\n
Wwere living in a leased premises and the lease of the said<\/p>\n
premises was come to an end in June, 1997. \/Q
\n\/'1<\/p>\n
16. in his cross-examination PW. 1 has stated that in the<\/p>\n
year 1973 he left Sagan He has further stated <\/p>\n
respondent was not the title hoider of the eche<_:_i;1Lii'e< .s;m;j  _<\/p>\n
that he purchased the house in the name  'l_'hefe –. u <\/p>\n
is no document to Show the paymegite uqf '1
\nrespondent.\n<\/p>\n
1?. That there is no docume\ufb01iif\u00e9vith T_i;w.1 has stated that in 1984 in<\/p>\n
” .. \ufb021’e*- preeence of two gaeone by name Sauna Ujramaiah and<\/p>\n
 Qyamaza’ b in the of\ufb01ce, the agreement relating<\/p>\n
  tenancy was finalized, however, the said persons had been<\/p>\n
transferred to Mandya. \/gg<\/p>\n
18. ‘i’}:1e evidence of PW\/2 and 3 with regard to tenancy
\nbetween the parties is of no aesietaace to the petitioneg”, but<\/p>\n
Pw.iAii3ei1:1g the signatory of 1:;x.v\u00ab2. his evidence V.<\/p>\n
xegarding execution of \u00a7:}x.P–2 by zespondem.    .<\/p>\n
then working as a clerk at Taiuk  ..\n<\/p>\n
respondent and identi\ufb01ed him at the  at’<\/p>\n
the time of regtisua\ufb01on of }:;x.,P’;.r3x___<\/p>\n
19. As opposed to the evidei1ee”eof they-e1:i’o;\u00a7Snef,;  1 in V<\/p>\n
his evidence has state’d..4_thatVAV’\u00e9inee’  year’ “I’\u00a7ESf>–57. the<\/p>\n
respondent has been in jiossesaiexi  Ltii\ufb02evjinemises and that<\/p>\n
they have’-n’eveVr”bfee1i otit._(33f– possession of the said premises<\/p>\n
since theii,  eehwlile premises there was a<\/p>\n
 moi ” eensenc\ufb01on and thereafter tiled moi”<\/p>\n
.Ace11$ei1’eie1jo3j’was put”. up aiong with wall and other amenities<\/p>\n
 It is also stated by xw.1 that the<\/p>\n
pe\ufb01!:ion_e1f’ bee never come near the schedule premises asicing<\/p>\n
  fmj maze; and that the schedule premises belongs to the<\/p>\n
A’ ggovefnment and that the Municipality has not issued any<\/p>\n
 u   Certi\ufb01cate either in favour of the petitioner or in favour<\/p>\n
of the respotmgient. According to him, it is not true that since<\/p>\n
1.4.1984, the respondent entered into pessession f the<\/p>\n
\/”\n<\/p>\n
18<\/span><\/p>\n
20. In his cross~exan3inatio11 RW3 has stated  since<\/p>\n
the schedule PIEDHSCS did not belong to the itunere<\/p>\n
was no necessity of seeking the permis$_i9_:\u00a7_”‘ejf  p\u00a7etif1euer=__<\/p>\n
for put\ufb01ng up certain C\u20ac)I1stI”u:7 which was  on.\u00bb’v1.;5}’?.19’ej?;’=;\u00e9w…%1
\nhas denied the  1&3!   W1;%1\u20ac
\ndocuments. in fact\ufb01w.  tgleevvsigiiature of his
\nfather even the   and additional
\nobjcci1″ons:.\ufb01\u00a7ie(\u00a51′:iI1    of the Witness
\nis {Lune  Schedule premises being
\nsoid—-by  ti3e…petitioner as well as regarding
\nte1′;aA’nc~_v}   from 1.1. 1984 the respondent<\/p>\n
6I1f\u00a33I’6;ii’…’.’atI’1tI_f) fmoseeseidn of the premises as a tenant on a<\/p>\n
,.31\u00a7;di1n*1iy  H5, 1501- that there was no relationship of<\/p>\n
A  3 ‘end tenant between the parties. However. he has<\/p>\n
 ._ ” a;;lA;ri1’iit\u00e9’1i_:::\u00a2;i__  b3x.}-33 to R5, R11 to\u00bb H123 and R14 to \u00a34319 bear<\/p>\n
“the \u00bb.f1i\u00e9a.Ine of the peiiiltioner and his name does not find a<\/p>\n
 .. plamsin the Voters list at t\u00a3x.N’.\u00a3(.1. RW2 has deposed as a<\/p>\n
VV ‘-;’-zeiglzbour of respondent but his evidence is not of much<\/p>\n
aesistanee to respondent. \/%<\/p>\n
E9<\/p>\n
21, Fmm the material on record, it is no\ufb01eed ihat by<\/p>\n
virtue of !:*3x.ir’–:2, the respondent is the seiier efHt}1e”<\/p>\n
schedule house and the peti\ufb01oner is the   <\/p>\n
vaiidity of the sale deed I;9x.P–;:?-‘ h’a’:s\u00ab 11053;  >1;-hiailenged 9f’ ‘<\/p>\n
betbre any competent court.\n<\/p>\n
the petitiener regarding   the   they<\/p>\n
otiginal sake deed ;..ex.v\u00ab2e.’–1.\u00abV%\u00a7<ec1:t;d  by-xheii deceased
\nrespondent in her \u00a3a\u00a7du\u00a73   executed by.
\nMunicipality, 'Sager    gieei\ufb01oner and the
\nassessment):   facie establish
\ntitle of   pmperty. it is also of
\n the petitioner had 110 title
\nover %:s e:4ei.1iy the constructed portion was<\/p>\n
30151' 'W by resg\\() ndLe1:a,t: ' to petitioner, subsequently. a sale<\/p>\n
 "  isseeei by the Municipality, which is at t:}x.i'{3<\/p>\n
  '"c;:\u00bbn" Vh""11n..V:V'*i\u00a71\u00a7g \\tfi1e.}~\ufb01\ufb02e over the site in the petition. In fact in<\/p>\n
 is the sale deed, there is a statement that<\/p>\n
 sche\u00e9hgie property is situated within the Municipal Emits and<\/p>\n
  the sale certi\ufb01cate has to be obtained from the<\/p>\n
 Municipa\ufb01ty. \u00a7:Zx.I'2 is a registered document dated<\/p>\n
14.’?.19e?’ under which the possessoxy title ef the<\/p>\n
respondent was sold to the petitioner as the respondent had<\/p>\n
\ufb01x<\/p>\n
20<\/span><\/p>\n
put up an unauthorised constxnctivn cm the site belonging
\n1:0 Sagar Municipality. in the said document it is;”(:–1car1y<\/p>\n
stated that a sum of \u00a363.50] – was to be paid by <\/p>\n
to the Municipahty to get the Saie     <\/p>\n
name of the petitioner and a sum.-‘(Sf its. 1330\/_: <\/p>\n
aslconsidcta\ufb01au and a sum of  (\\Ef&’$  t_< 3 be<\/p>\n
as consideration at the time   V<\/p>\n
statement that possession  <)vc.\u00a2'r" io..t.h\u00a2:\u00a7petitioner
\nby virtue of the: said  it is apparent
\nthat by virtue  vg   4.9.1956 the
\nschedule       gomai land was
\nt3*ans\ufb01-.:';_xrcd–A   and by resoiution N0. 1'?\n<\/p>\n
dated    to make an abewiixte sake in<\/p>\n
favcgur of  ., V_Vpt\u00e9”tit:ic\u00a7:uer and 16.1.1968 is a registered<\/p>\n
  jvixrhich also notes that a sum of Rs.134.75 was<\/p>\n
I     int: – Mum’cipa1ity on 4.1.1968 and possession of<\/p>\n
t1i(:.__l:z0}1se_vL’iIaz:aT.s also handed over on 16.1.3968. T116 saici<\/p>\n
  is signed by the President of the Sagar<\/p>\n
 Fudu\ufb01icipa\ufb01ty and two other oouncilors and is attested by’ two<\/p>\n
 ‘V  jmmesses. ,<\/p>\n
22. Therefore, iiii\ufb01aiiy the respondent did not have any<\/p>\n
right or title in respect of the schedule  ”<\/p>\n
respondent was in tmauthoxzizeci occupation    <\/p>\n
putting up a temporary structure.    V<\/p>\n
the said. prep-e11:y was trazasfetreii niiby Jvmepeiidneni <\/p>\n
petitioner, though the respeiaeiezit  no iifie i;he”jsa;i(1’* V<\/p>\n
property. The ciear:   “petitiqii1e1′ ought
\nto get the posseseiqxi  jtirie _ ii regiiiaxized by
\ng\ufb01t\ufb01\ufb02g 5516    iiexne f1′(}131i the
\nMunicipality  \/– was set apart
\nfor   amount paid
\nunder:  the peijtioner appiied. to the
\nSager  iviiirtue of i:’.x.l’3 the petitioner get<\/p>\n
the 1iii’.;ir2_as xiive-ii” as’: pi\ufb01ssessien of the seheduie premises<\/p>\n
.  * in her ii\u00e9\ufb01ie, which eciocument is not adverted to<\/p>\n
    eourt. The following documents axe also<\/p>\n
reieizant.  context of petitioner’s title. b1x.P4 is the<\/p>\n
 endometiient issued by ‘l’Mf_’:, Sager to the petitioner. which<\/p>\n
“if  that the petitioner is the orwnei” of the schedule<\/p>\n
i\u00e9mperty and t:’:x.i’-5 is the assessment extract of the<\/p>\n
schedule property while bix.Pf> is the Payment Receipt whic\ufb01<\/p>\n
also reveals the name of the pe\ufb01tioner, while t:}x.P’? is the
\n\/r<\/p>\n
22<\/span><\/p>\n
receipt issued by the Municipality with Iegard to thhe-ejsite<\/p>\n
valuation in respect of the petition <\/p>\n
pursuant to iesmanee of sale certi\ufb01cate.  <\/p>\n
endorsement given by the Municipality’ to <\/p>\n
of khatha in favour of the petiti0uc1a\ufb02;__  to:<\/p>\n
tax Vment made by the V ‘iitioner to  e <\/p>\n
respect of the schedule premieues; to ‘F391  cleariy<\/p>\n
support the titie ofthe  premises.\n<\/p>\n
23. HO\\VCV_’;51;\u00a2”:\u00a7}:,\ufb01’ip  i’3Sf7Q\ufb01def1if\\Ps”‘V.”eaee is that he had<\/p>\n
const:’uctet\u00a7 31   bearing Sy.No.i2.() of<\/p>\n
Sannatmane    of the express zecitals in
\ni:}x.k’2 ey\u00e9eetited \ufb01g;  zeeporident in favour of the petitioner,<\/p>\n
the 4’.;’eSpo11dent contend ottzerwise. in feet Ex.R3 to<\/p>\n
   the tax pend” receipts issued by the<\/p>\n
   19?(} to 1989 and the notices \ufb01om<\/p>\n
 fiom 19″i’3 to 1976 clearly reveal the name of<\/p>\n
 the \ufb01ietitioner in the same, though according to the<\/p>\n
 ._I”es_\ufb01iI1deut, the payment was made by the respondent and<\/p>\n
  Wife and son. 11:: fact b}x.R2 is the i~\u00a3’i'{3 extract of<\/p>\n
Sy.No.’2{} of Sannamane village which discloses that the<\/p>\n
property was awuired by the Municipality \ufb01tom the Revenue<\/p>\n
2\/,.\n<\/p>\n
Depmment under whose jurisdiction it was treated as gomal
\nland. But the name of the respondent is not titnmd in the<\/p>\n
said document either in the title txoiders column’<\/p>\n
coiumn with Iegaxd to p0$$\u00a3;’:S$iDI}.. However,  _<\/p>\n
of the eazid. property by the ..\n<\/p>\n
l1}x.R21 and R22 which are <\/p>\n
deceased respondent to ti:i\u20ac,fV1t}1]iCi’;VSa,\ufb01’t\u00a7’ for  ,<\/p>\n
to 1957 aiso reveal that the \u00a3\u00e9$3;:ondex;i~hg\u00a7ga–“an \u00abgz1teres: in
\nthe seheclule   h’,x.P2 and
\nsubsequently, the  Under the<\/p>\n
circumstances’  by___f31e respondent with<\/p>\n
 tee  ._pef:i\ufb01oner viz–a-viz the schedule
\npmmises; nv111:Ve’:1aai):i’e.-  the trial court rightly heid En<\/p>\n
ragga: ef ti1e”pei:itioner and the Ievisionui court committed<\/p>\n
    the eaigi issue against the petitioner<\/p>\n
 a:’1_d  .\u00a7i’ie:egeeing the eviction petition.<\/p>\n
 3; “a reading of the above documents it is<\/p>\n
 established that the petifsioner has supported her contention<\/p>\n
“ii  her title to the schedule yremieee with the help of<\/p>\n
 ‘::loeumentar_v evidence but the respondent though eieuiee<\/p>\n
title of the petiitioner to the said premises has not<\/p>\n
\/9\/’<\/p>\n
24<\/span><\/p>\n
corroborated his evidence with any documentary evideiiee. in<\/p>\n
fact, no contra evidence by Way of documents.\u00ab..iLaVtie–heen<\/p>\n
prociuced by the xeependent to dis~e1aim the pr\u00a7i1a::’a:c&i\u00ab\u00a7e”t::i+_iq’e  <\/p>\n
of the petitioner in respect of  <\/p>\n
‘rue. initial title in the Sagar Muni\u00e9-:Vpa:’3.;ft\u00a7 isttafiix-med <\/p>\n
respondent also who has not   his”\n<\/p>\n
name. Under the ci1eun;stan:ce–eV:it–ie’*he1d tliat..t11\u20act:\u00a7petitioner
\nis the titie h-alder of   the \ufb01nding of
\nthe i\u20acevi:=3i<)3;xa1 (3:)_.11zt   while the
\n\ufb01nding of    <\/p>\n
25. fl\ufb01ev   tn the existence of
\n\u00a7ea:1\u00a3ilo:i*:i’–:t’e’11aV11:1:VVVbetxaree1;1 the parties. It is the<\/p>\n
case of  petitioxterbt  the Iespondcnt is a tenant in<\/p>\n
 –   e\u00e9ehex.i.Lue premises with effect from 1.1.1934<\/p>\n
 ‘ xiii rent. of 143.150\/– and that the respondent paid<\/p>\n
‘rents nip  \u00a33112. 1937 and not face: January 1933 and the<\/p>\n
 ttherveafter. According to the petitioner, the Iespondent<\/p>\n
 ., Aeoaeizriviseted a roof on the srzzileduie premises by removing the<\/p>\n
 roof and that he has also constructed a shed on the<\/p>\n
V’ ” ‘haeiceitie of the house. lnitialiy a notice was issued on<\/p>\n
30.6.1986 regarding arrears of rent and the same was<\/p>\n
\/9\u00bb<\/p>\n
25<\/span><\/p>\n
tepiieci by sta\ufb01ng that respondent was not a tenan.t___ of the<\/p>\n
schedule premises. The respondent had also a(\u00a7’:i1i\u00a79_’\u00a3i;3ei:.”‘.1;11at<\/p>\n
he had removed the mating and had put uy\u00e9z <\/p>\n
and aiso constructed entire stmetme    . <\/p>\n
permission or consent of the  ‘mg fai<\/p>\n
court in the absentre of ._evide’13ce  5to the<\/p>\n
respondent having  in   and the
\nrespondent net  Lttgstth  possession of the
\npremises in any  of PW. I that the
\nrespon<ie1:4;f._.:visA:.\u00a7is\u00a7r1g::'i11   as a tenant
\nwould     <\/p>\n
2e.  ';'f;cbasis of i:3x.P2:, P3, P5, P6, P7',<\/p>\n
P9 to P21-4_  19 held that the petitioner was the<\/p>\n
titilcee-holder  vthat the respondent was in arrears of rent<\/p>\n
.  tiantisxy 1988 and that the schedule premises was<\/p>\n
 . .fo'e.'ijona\ufb01de use amt socupation of the petitioner<\/p>\n
  the petition under Section 2l(}_){aj, (I1) and (C)<\/p>\n
 A. \u00a7z\u00a7fhiie"tiismissi11g the petition under Section 2i(1)(j).<\/p>\n
  As far as the nature of possession of the respondent in<\/p>\n
'T respect of the setzwule premises is concerned ans with<\/p>\n
regard to there being landlord tenant xekationship between<\/p>\n
\/9\/\u00ab<\/p>\n
2:13<\/p>\n
the parties, the evidence of the Witnesses would havteto be<\/p>\n
looked into before answering on the said issue. <\/p>\n
the petitioner the respondent took: on the'  b <\/p>\n
premises \ufb01otn 1.1.1934 on a moztthtjft :nnt._otT'Rs!i–5):Uj4'<\/p>\n
the lease commenced from _ the  even; Anaonth <\/p>\n
ended on the East day of the"'v\u00bbnionth. Whats  <\/p>\n
1988 up to end of Jtliitix  fesponctent"\u00a31ss bmn in
\narrears of rent to an extent'  response to the
\nsaid \u00a3egai    is produced as
\n.i:lx.\u00a3'17'. t'3\u00a7.g' sass  of the respondent on
\n93?.     Iespohdent, the petitioner had
\nno right,  \u00ab.res\ufb012ect of the schedule premises
\nand that  not a tenant of the petitioner;<\/p>\n
ti1a.t_\u00a7:"'i'_"Vi?:\u20ac;. resioonsient vtas in possession of the premises for<\/p>\n
, nearly 'fi1"t_\u00a7% hence there was no question of the<\/p>\n
   over vacant possession of the premises<\/p>\n
totflze  While on the other hand denying the<\/p>\n
  exoeunen of Ex. P12, it was also contended by the respondent<\/p>\n
'' Vin-et.\u00abA'\u00abdespite the execution of I:)x.i~'iz by the respondent in<\/p>\n
%  V.  invent of the petitioner, since the respondent continued to be<\/p>\n
in possession of the schedule premises, the resyrondernt had<\/p>\n
\ufb01g,<\/p>\n
2'?\n<\/p>\n
perfected his title to the schedule pmmisos by virtue of the<\/p>\n
doctrine of adverse possession.\n<\/p>\n
28. From the material on rmxd What has to  _<\/p>\n
is the oral evie:\u00a3c::t::.e of the pmijios  u <\/p>\n
estabfisiament of iandiord tcnant:=_:1’e1at:of1S12i;.i …Eetiav\u20ac%f:3)7 <\/p>\n
parties, in the sense that while it  \u00e9stab\u00a7iSvi!\u00a7\u00a3\u00a3i _V ih\u00e9t \ufb011e_* ,<\/p>\n
petitioner had acquired title  Q2-Af ‘  schedule
\npremises by way of  ~”r::sp-on\u00a7Aie\u00a31t entering
\ninto pooseasion with     a tenant is not<\/p>\n
supported by” Further the case<\/p>\n
of the “” “:’w1\u00a7;;nd\u00e9\u00a7;t- igzhai am’ 1- 14.7.1957 the
\nrespolf\u00e9cicixt   in possession of the<\/p>\n
premises az1\u00a31’voI1  ‘b\u00e9isis adverse possession has been<\/p>\n
   by tho” \u00abrzzsyondent. But the said stand of the<\/p>\n
‘ i”s.:_1ot correct as it: is clear that the respondent<\/p>\n
A ‘ci–i:;:–. :A:\u00ab;$\u00a3 have any titic to the scheduic site and that<\/p>\n
 ‘was executed by the respondent in favour of the<\/p>\n
 ., ‘petif\ufb01o\ufb01or only, possession was handed over to the petitioner,<\/p>\n
“7~”;\u00e9$’ f\u00e9spondent could not convey any title to the petitioner.<\/p>\n
‘ VV  This Woulti prima facie support the contention of the<\/p>\n
petitioner that after petitioner had taken possession from the<\/p>\n
\/E\u00bb<\/p>\n
28<\/span><\/p>\n
respondent in the year 1967, the respondent entered into
\nposmesien of the premises with effect from 1.1. 1984.-‘=::_n1y as,<\/p>\n
a tenant as petitioner has also stated in his evidenee- as<\/p>\n
per i\u00a7Zx.P2 possession was given by the msgj-e\u00e9ndengt 4_<\/p>\n
petitioner and thereafter the mother-.-\u00a7n\u00a7laiv’   iieil\ufb01ioizexe ‘ L. <\/p>\n
i.e.. mother of i~’W.1 reeideci in {he   <\/p>\n
her death, the respondeni \ufb02ag. inihleted ns  <\/p>\n
respect of the premises in   has not
\npntrciuced any evi\u00a3iei1v;;.i:.,t\u00a7\u00ab:~Lh  What capacity he
\ncontinued to Ieaifie eenecution of l:}x.l-*2,
\nwherein \ufb02’   of the premises in
\nthe   pe\ufb01\ufb01oner. The assertion of the
\nre5pon d”t:n t in   document at i:*3x.Pi?. and the<\/p>\n
ot,t_ief exhibite   in favour of petitioner.<\/p>\n
\u00bb  ,:PiS’  __the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, the<\/p>\n
 2  under Section 381) does not envzsa’ ge<\/p>\n
o\\u\u00a7’nereAhi’p”.i11 respect of the premises under the tenancy ass a<\/p>\n
V’ ‘A .iandleird who is not a owner of premises is entitleci to seek<\/p>\n
 evietion of the tenant. But the creation and existence of<\/p>\n
landlord tenant relationship is a sine qua non for the court to<\/p>\n
assume jurisdiction un\u00e9er the Rent Uontroi Act. In the<\/p>\n
\/2\u00bb<\/p>\n
absence of tenancy between the parties, a person eaimot<\/p>\n
maintain a petition for eviction under the Act. Wiiezefeie,<\/p>\n
While answering on the two issues the trial  aesziierede ”<\/p>\n
in favour of the petitioner not only on. ,t;i:ge qi;ieeiieiiV  132! u<\/p>\n
the schedule pzemises, but also  <\/p>\n
zelatrionship of landlord  * L’<\/p>\n
However, the revisional court   was a
\nbona\ufb01de dispute as to  :\u00a7\ufb01e*~v.pe’t:i\ufb01ener in respect of
\nthe scheduie premises anti “eaeis ciieznisseci
\nthe eviction    without going into
\nthe other  feieigieiashjp of ilandiord and
\ntenant  teeii as on the entitlement of
\nthe pe\ufb01fibzger te   of the zespondent. if the<\/p>\n
revisifsuai. ceuzt  ‘Had  considered landlord and tenant<\/p>\n
– . VVV’betwee\ufb01”‘fi1e parties in the first instance and en<\/p>\n
 being a reiaiienship wouid have answered<\/p>\n
the Qther,~iee11es, would have been considered. However, in<\/p>\n
 –   tf3.\u00a3’:’: abeeeee of an answer as to the existence cf relationship<\/p>\n
   and tenant between the parties by the xevisienai<\/p>\n
  and the boua\ufb01de dispute as to title being answered in<\/p>\n
 the a\ufb01xma\ufb01ve and not taking up the other issues for<\/p>\n
eonsidera\ufb01on on the gzrzmnd. that they eiid not survive for<\/p>\n
I’<\/p>\n
consideration and thereby diemissing the evictie-n peiitien is<\/p>\n
not the correct approach of the revisional <:x:3u1't.  .V  <\/p>\n
30. As far as the denial of title by the tena1’xtA4_:isVv u <\/p>\n
the dispute,  not a complicated  be <\/p>\n
court under the Act. A question refgaxiiiag ajsp\ufb01te bf  <\/p>\n
complicated one or not is a  ques\ufb01o\ufb02efv-Ia fsmrven fact.<\/p>\n
The nature of the  fa\u00ab\u00e9;iV:e’V_  tefsiieh a plea,
\ngeuuiness of the plea, ‘   the parties and
\nvarious   be taken into
\ne<)ns\ufb01eI'aii'e1;..'t3:3%\u00bbL"   it is; {band that there is a
\nbouaf\ufb01devdie\u00e9jptei tJ1e._"V1ii;:\u00e9ii:tie:3 as to the existence of
\nsuehvVvi'eI\u00a5\u00e91\u20ac1oi1s.le:i};\u00a7\u00bb Abe parties, the court exercising
\nspecial  decide the question. For<\/p>\n
 where a~–sale deed is required to be pmvw in the<\/p>\n
V  title of the landlord, the same has to be pmved<\/p>\n
.' bg\u00e9ditxe  along with the attestore of the sand' deed<\/p>\n
also, \u00a323211 eviction proeeedinge, a tenant cannot question the<\/p>\n
2 \u00bb  tiageaetion between the landlord and the third party, which<\/p>\n
Adghdal\u00e9 conferred em on the iandierd. in fact, the validity of the<\/p>\n
H tide to the property where registered sale deed ie in existence<\/p>\n
\/L\/r<\/p>\n
and which has not been challenged in any suit canpot be<\/p>\n
questioned by the tenant.\n<\/p>\n
31. As far as adjudication of the dispgiie  <\/p>\n
la11<:iiord~tenant reiationsiinip is   VV<\/p>\n
Rent Control Act has not describeai   \ufb01r<\/p>\n
form of creation of a  of  ..t.e\u00a711ant.'V.L'<\/p>\n
However. in the abse;_1oe of  being..a~-.;g#;g;\u00a7e,3rd\u00bbtenant
\nreiationship, the pmeie\ufb01\ufb01\ufb01hs   u Act would
\nnot apply. Uxxder the ':\u00a7_.\u00a7er;erai iaw i.e., the
\nTraxasfer of   mode of czeating a
\nreiationshiipe.  evouki have to be taken
\ninto cr:0ns\u00e9de;;\u00a2ei\u00a7iOi;\u00ab\u00a3ij.e" relationship is: disputed, the
\nRent  id  upon the relationship and pass<\/p>\n
app\ufb01fb\ufb01iiate oiiieie  cannot simpiy direct the parties to<\/p>\n
ye  e\u00e9igtjgggreiy because there is denial of ia11dlord\u00bbtenant<\/p>\n
  "the tenant. A simpie denial of mlationship<\/p>\n
ca,i;"m0t..__' '<i1}…<;fi: the jurisdiction cf the court: under the Act<\/p>\n
   "the simplest thing Wmzid be for a party to deny the<\/p>\n
A' je\ufb01s\ufb01enehip of iandbrd and tenant. In such circumstance,<\/p>\n
%    {he court oons\ufb01tuted under the Rent Act has to determine<\/p>\n
the reiatienship of landlenii and tenant The denial of<\/p>\n
\/k\/r<\/p>\n
3;?\n<\/p>\n
relationship by a tenant should be examined by the court by
\nlooking into the record to \ufb01nd out whether suei3H(i,:e\ufb02.ia.l is<\/p>\n
bona\ufb01de. As the said issue is one of fact Iequiiiegf<\/p>\n
to establish the reiationship. the que-stiQ:1_._Viof,VreI\u00a7Il:ie13etx\ufb01p”b <\/p>\n
between Landlord and tenant Jbe  as <\/p>\n
issue and thereafter the other isslieeiihave <\/p>\n
‘I’he court ales has to \ufb01nd the
\nthe tenant is untenabi1eV_or    as to
\nWhether the Rent  lie  exercising its
\njurisdiction    jurisdkziion of the
\ncourt   cannot be invoked unless.\n<\/p>\n
there’   landlord and tenant, but
\nmere   does. not invoke juriedie\ufb01on of<\/p>\n
the   tinder the Act and the same may’ be<\/p>\n
.  ., A as  issue or tried along with other<\/p>\n
   i_eeuee’ upon the facts and eireumetaxieee of the<\/p>\n
”  V””l’he eitations referred to at the Bar are as feiiews. In<\/p>\n
 ease of Pratapsingh & Others Vs. Jaibunnisa Hegum &<\/p>\n
‘T another reported in Aii\ufb01 1989 liarnataka 70 (DB) it was held<\/p>\n
that the plea as to title of the iandiord, if found to be<\/p>\n
\/9\u00bb<\/p>\n
33<\/span><\/p>\n
bona\ufb01de and complicated, peeuits in ref1’a:i11i:ng of the<\/p>\n
exercise \u00abof jurisciiction under the Act and therefore,<\/p>\n
plea genes to the met of the juxisdietion. in suche;”e’ae–e’:s. %<\/p>\n
be within the judicial discretion of the  V’ <\/p>\n
to put forth a contention even  \u00a5:\u00a5f1btt. Cj<)ii\u00a7eii1;i03:1 *w'aeM.g1o\u00a7,<\/p>\n
properly argued in the Lower,  za   \u00a5'<\/p>\n
raised in the pleadings and feie\ufb01rant   in the
\nlight of the eireumstaeeejs  ._pzim\u00e9'.1 fae}2ve support
\nthe pica. '!'i1erefcHe,   the juxisdie\ufb01on
\nto adjudicate   Laudlom if 01:1 the<\/p>\n
material an   be given and so aiso a<\/p>\n
 giver! \u00a331;-._i$ei1e by {he trial court can be<\/p>\n
corrected" at "t he  e-If . re.vision<\/p>\n
   gzi the  Mohammad Ibrahim \u00abSE Oihem Vs.<\/p>\n
  V'1\u00a71\u00a3z?1;1i;v,<\u00a7b\u00e9\u00a7bi in 1963(2) Mysore Law Journal 25$} ii:<\/p>\n
.iaae been.V'VNi1e_ii1Vthat whenever there is a complicated dispute<\/p>\n
as 'to:  title of the landlord or as to the existence of the<\/p>\n
~ iteigaeney, the court functioning under the Act has pewer to<\/p>\n
Ajefer the parties to a suit. In the said deeieie\ufb01 there was. a<\/p>\n
 serious dispute between the parties with regard to a saie<\/p>\n
made in respect of the house preperty to the respondent<\/p>\n
\/$4.\n<\/p>\n
therein and whether the first peti\ufb01oner was a tenant under<\/p>\n
the respondent. Under such circumstances <\/p>\n
directed the parties to establish their rights in enjjeki<\/p>\n
as they found it pessibie to do so in a prqpe_i*i\u00a7r  .e <\/p>\n
suit. In the instant case however,_ the ‘?_issue_  <\/p>\n
question of titie of the pet\u00bb1Tfi:’1_o11er”–xgi$.~–a–visj  ” wht\u00e9fiixle <\/p>\n
premises is not a eomplicate(‘i””~e:1Vr:i1e but
\nthe Ieiatiouship betweetiighe j\u00e9isejizet  at all by<\/p>\n
the revisional court Wh\ufb02e Vtiie   on the iseue<\/p>\n
is con\ufb01rmed\n<\/p>\n
34. {ii Viihe. ‘!\u20aci\u00a3a&.t{;i7no\u00a2;\u00a7:ii\u00e91″l\u00a7}as1ag*ir3ab Vs. Hasawwa
\n& Oih\u00e9fre   Mysore 46:: it has been held<\/p>\n
that the  ‘\u00a7i:11cr__1;i{ji.fV1i’I’1g’~’bLi111cie1’ the Rent (,’4;mt;rol Act, 1961<\/p>\n
 \u00ab.  haV$”3*.o:eett:le tJ:e”j1&_Ii3<1ic1:ional ilact naxaeiy the existence of<\/p>\n
 relationship between the parties and is<\/p>\n
{:onn';jpeter\u00a7f.":oVA{tieej\u00a3ie even disputes relating :0 the titie of the<\/p>\n
a that such disputes are net cenapiieated<\/p>\n
 V,   absolutely essentiai to the decieioie. of the<\/p>\n
ljaiieeic\ufb02onal fact. in the said. case Where the titie of the<\/p>\n
  to the piemises was questioned and the tenant set<\/p>\n
up his mm titie as owner, it was heid that the dispuie<\/p>\n
\/'\/~<\/p>\n
35<\/span><\/p>\n
relating to the title of the ianeiiortzi izmvoived the eem\ufb01fxcawd<\/p>\n
questions of law and as eueh it was in the intereet. ef<\/p>\n
the question to be settled in a pmperiy   V’ <\/p>\n
not in a summary pmeeeding.\n<\/p>\n
es. Whiie applying the abzive decisipiis to :t\ufb01e_:fs:1ets }:3r ‘t;1;e ‘ ><\/p>\n
pxese-at case, the petitioner h2;e”\u00ab’to  on the
\nbasis of !:3x.P2 and  ,th.at t\ufb02zetespondent
\nhas not set upjtititi   other hand has
\nadmitted   fxveis  oceupa\ufb01on of a
\npremises     The said
\nplea, _ \u00a5;E”1veVV’eonte11ts of E:-r:.P’.\u00bb3 and P3.
\nthe deuaeie \u00bb\u00a7\u00a7:en~m In above, would make it<\/p>\n
apparent  ti3e..’–ree\u00a7pe1″1sdent’s dispute reganiing the title of<\/p>\n
 V’  , tl*\u00a7e’A:’petiti:31;er  V’i1″21ifenable and the respondent has also<\/p>\n
    that the said title vested with any other<\/p>\n
‘pefeen, .””:\u20ac’:;?\u00ab\u00a7ii1Si{iCI’iBg the fact that the petitioner produced<\/p>\n
};*}x.i”;3. }zt1<:i P23 apart \ufb01em other documentary evidence, in<\/p>\n
A f_"' Aejiier to prove her title in reepect of the seheduie premises<\/p>\n
Vewould mean that the dispute raised by the reepondent<\/p>\n
' regarding the petitioner's \ufb01tie to the premises did not involve<\/p>\n
any cempiicated qaestien of fact since it is not the case {if<\/p>\n
\/3\u00bb<\/p>\n
the respondent that the documents in ques\ufb01on partieiziarly<\/p>\n
b}x.P'.3 and V3 were not valid documents. Hence   "-22;<\/p>\n
case where oomp\ufb01cated dispute as to  2  <\/p>\n
landiord [petitioner had to be refe3:red"to't.i.e1&e  16;<\/p>\n
adjudication and the trio" ' 1 Court  <\/p>\n
\ufb01nding on the petitioner's title.'<\/p>\n
36. in the ease of !.do;izabfr’A  Singh
\nreported in AIR 1999   that even
\nthere is exe1;1seee:j’    in respect of a
\nscheduie   not give  to any
\npresu:ji\u00a7)tioIt.:   of there being any
\nevidenee   es to in What capacity the<\/p>\n
respondent”-txade  of the premises in question.<\/p>\n
   exeo”t1\ufb01on’ of Ex.P2, in my view, the trial court<\/p>\n
 ‘ tees.   -holdixxg that there existed relationship of<\/p>\n
iaxhiditoreit  vttenant between the parties. Since the<\/p>\n
 mxrieio\ufb01al  has not adverted to this aspect of the matter,<\/p>\n
2 .. i:.n’e- of the triai court on this aspect is oonsirieted and<\/p>\n
con\ufb01rmed.\n<\/p>\n
  For the aforesaid reasons, the revision petition is<\/p>\n
aiiowed and the order of the revisionai oourt is set aside by<\/p>\n
\u00bb\/\u00ab~<\/p>\n
H’<\/p>\n
37<\/span><\/p>\n
confirming the order of the trial 001111, Without any ordclj-as<\/p>\n
to costs.\n<\/p>\n
S\/KVN*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Smt Renukamma vs Sri Ramachandra Bhatta on 24 April, 2009 Author: B.V.Nagarathna 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 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-196952","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSmt Renukamma vs Sri Ramachandra Bhatta on 24 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-renukamma-vs-sri-ramachandra-bhatta-on-24-april-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Smt Renukamma vs Sri Ramachandra Bhatta on 24 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-renukamma-vs-sri-ramachandra-bhatta-on-24-april-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-04-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-03-01T17:26:41+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"32 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-renukamma-vs-sri-ramachandra-bhatta-on-24-april-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-renukamma-vs-sri-ramachandra-bhatta-on-24-april-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Smt Renukamma vs Sri Ramachandra Bhatta on 24 April, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-04-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-01T17:26:41+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-renukamma-vs-sri-ramachandra-bhatta-on-24-april-2009\"},\"wordCount\":5958,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Karnataka High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-renukamma-vs-sri-ramachandra-bhatta-on-24-april-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-renukamma-vs-sri-ramachandra-bhatta-on-24-april-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-renukamma-vs-sri-ramachandra-bhatta-on-24-april-2009\",\"name\":\"Smt Renukamma vs Sri Ramachandra Bhatta on 24 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-04-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-01T17:26:41+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-renukamma-vs-sri-ramachandra-bhatta-on-24-april-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-renukamma-vs-sri-ramachandra-bhatta-on-24-april-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-renukamma-vs-sri-ramachandra-bhatta-on-24-april-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Smt Renukamma vs Sri Ramachandra Bhatta on 24 April, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Smt Renukamma vs Sri Ramachandra Bhatta on 24 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-renukamma-vs-sri-ramachandra-bhatta-on-24-april-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Smt Renukamma vs Sri Ramachandra Bhatta on 24 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-renukamma-vs-sri-ramachandra-bhatta-on-24-april-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-04-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-03-01T17:26:41+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"32 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-renukamma-vs-sri-ramachandra-bhatta-on-24-april-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-renukamma-vs-sri-ramachandra-bhatta-on-24-april-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Smt Renukamma vs Sri Ramachandra Bhatta on 24 April, 2009","datePublished":"2009-04-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-01T17:26:41+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-renukamma-vs-sri-ramachandra-bhatta-on-24-april-2009"},"wordCount":5958,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Karnataka High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-renukamma-vs-sri-ramachandra-bhatta-on-24-april-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-renukamma-vs-sri-ramachandra-bhatta-on-24-april-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-renukamma-vs-sri-ramachandra-bhatta-on-24-april-2009","name":"Smt Renukamma vs Sri Ramachandra Bhatta on 24 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-04-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-01T17:26:41+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-renukamma-vs-sri-ramachandra-bhatta-on-24-april-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-renukamma-vs-sri-ramachandra-bhatta-on-24-april-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-renukamma-vs-sri-ramachandra-bhatta-on-24-april-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Smt Renukamma vs Sri Ramachandra Bhatta on 24 April, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/196952","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=196952"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/196952\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=196952"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=196952"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=196952"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}