IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION No.7490/2015 Between:
Mr.Anish Sadanandan, S/o C.Sadanandan, Aged about 38 years, R/at No.104, 10th Main, 6th Sector, HSR Layout, Bengaluru – 560 102. …Petitioner (By Sri Usman P, Advocate) And:
1. State of Karnataka, By Koramangala Police Station, Bengaluru – 560 034.
Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore – 560 001.
2. Mr.M.C.Krishnaswamy, S/o Madala Chinnabba, Aged about 76 years, 899, 7th Main, 4th Cross, HAL 2nd Stage, Indiranagara, Bangalore – 560 008. ...Respondents (By Sri. Vijayakumar Majage, Addl. S.P.P., for R1;
Sri. Naveen Chandra V., Advocate for R2 – Absent) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to quash the charge sheet filed in C.C.No.21607/2015 on the file of the IV A.C.M.M., Court, Bengaluru arising out of Crime No.894/2014 of Koramangala Police Station the 1st Respondent and allow this Criminal Petition.
This Criminal petition coming on for Admission, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Addl. SPP for respondent No.1. Counsel for respondent No.2 is absent. Perused the records.
Petitioner herein obtained a premises from one M.C.Krishnaswamy –second respondent on monthly rent. The original written agreement dated 01.05.2005 was entered into between petitioner and respondent No.2. It was followed by several subsequent agreements between the parties.
2. The case of the complainant is that the petitioner/accused No.1 was prohibited from sub-letting the demised premises, but contrary to the terms of written agreement, petitioner representing himself as owner of the demised premises, sub-let the same for service apartment and thereby committed offences punishable under sections 120(B), 406, 420 read with 34 IPC.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the allegations made in the charge sheet, even if accepted on their face value, do not constitute the ingredients of the above offences. Respondent No.2 himself permitted petitioner to run service apartment in the demised premises. Learned counsel has referred to section 54(iv) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 and would submit that, in the event of any contravention of clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 27, the said provision defines the offences as well as provides for penalties. The provisions of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 prevail upon the general offences specified in the Indian Penal Code and hence, on both these counts, the proceedings initiated against the petitioner are liable to be quashed.
4. Learned Addl. SPP appearing for respondent No.1 disputing the above submissions has pointed out that in the rental agreement dated 25.03.2013, petitioner has represented himself as the owner of the demised premises and thereby induced the sub-tenant to enter into an agreement and therefore, there is prima facie material making out the ingredients of the above offences.
5. Considered the rival submissions and perused the records.
There is no dispute as to the fact that respondent No.2 as owner of a commercial space, rents out the same to petitioner under a written rental agreement. One of the clauses of the said agreement provided that, petitioner shall use the premises for residential purposes only and shall not use it for any offensive or objectionable purpose and shall not without written consent of the lessor, sub-let, under lease or part with the possession of the premises to anyone whomsoever or make any alterations therein.
6. Even though learned counsel for petitioner has relied on the so-called letter said to have been written by respondent No.2 permitting petitioner to run the service apartment in the said premises, the said letter cannot be construed as a written consent for petitioner to sub-let the premises. That apart, in the subsequent agreement relied on by the prosecution, petitioner having represented himself as the owner, the above material, in my view, prima facie make out the ingredients of offences charged against petitioner. In that view of the matter, I do not find any justifiable ground to quash the proceedings.
7. Section 54 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1990 is not applicable to the facts of the present case. The said provision opens with a non-obstante clause and states that, without prejudice to any other action that may be taken to enforce the regulation or this Act, landlord is entitled to take action against the tenants or sub-tenants as provided under the said enactment. In the instant case, there being specific allegation constituting criminal offences, in my opinion, the provisions of section 54 of the Karnataka Rent Act do not get attracted to the facts of the instant case. However, having regard to the contentions raised by the petitioner, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to seek discharge before the trial court on such grounds available in law. In that event, any observation made in this order touching the merits of the case shall not influence the trial court in whatsoever manner.
Petition stands dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Bss