IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK G. NIJAGANNAVAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.451 OF 2013 (SC) BETWEEN:
M.A.RAHEEM, S/O.LATE HAJI MOHAMMED ABDUL HUSSAIN, AGED 82 YEARS, R/AT NO.4, BOREBANK ROAD, BENSON TOWN, BENGALURU – 560046. …PETITIONER (BY SRI.M.G.JAVEED AHMED KHAN, ADVOCATE) AND:
H.GURUNATH, S/O.HANUMANTAPPA, MAJOR, FRUIT MERCHANT AND COMMISSION AGENT, NO.21 (OLD NO.13), PID NO.30/6/21, SEETHU RAO STREET, SIDLIKATTE, BENGALURU – 560002. ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI.S.SHAKER SHETTY, ADVOCATE) **** THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 18 OF THE KARNATAKA SMALL CAUSES COURTS ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21.06.2013 PASSED IN S.C.NO.1742/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE XVI ADDL. JUDGE, MACT, BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR POSSESSION, ARREARS OF RENT AND MESNE PROFITS.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Counsel for the petitioner absent. No representation.
In the present case, I.A. No.1/15 was filed under Order XXII Rule 4 of PC to bring the LRs of deceased respondent No.1.
On issuance of notice, the counsel for the proposed LRs of R1(a) to R1(c) has appeared.
Though this matter was posted for admission on 01.02.2017, on the said date, the counsel for the petitioner sought for time. Thereafter, there is no representation by the counsel for the petitioner.
This petition is filed for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 21.06.2013 passed in S.C. No.1742/2012 by the XVI Additional Small Causes Judge & MACT, Bangalore.
The petitioner who is the plaintiff / petitioner in S.C. No.1742/2012 has filed a petition for eviction of the defendant / tenant from the schedule property, for arrears of rent and mesne profits. The said petition was dismissed as per the judgment dated 21.06.2013. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the petitioner is before this Court.
The impugned order is challenged on several grounds contending that the learned trial Judge has committed error in dismissing the petition of the petitioner for ejectment. The reasons given by the learned trial Judge are not sustainable in law. Even though, the defendant was placed exparte, the learned trial Judge has not properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence. Thus, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
As could be seen from the impugned order, the court below has observed that according to the evidence of PW1, the schedule property stands in the name of Haji Mohammed Abdul Hussain and others, but not in the name of the plaintiff / petitioner. There are no records to show that the petitioner is the absolute owner of the schedule property. Admittedly, Haji Mohammed Abdul Hussain who is the absolute owner of the property has expired on 08.11.1972. But, no records are forthcoming to show that the petitioner is the only legal representative of the deceased. With this reasoning, it is held that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant. Consequently, the suit / petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed.
As already stated above, despite several opportunities given to the appellant, there is no representation and no grounds are made out regarding the error in the impugned order.
For the foregoing reasons, there are no valid grounds to admit the petition. Hence, I pass the following:
ORDER The civil revision petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE SJ