IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G.NARENDAR BETWEEN:
H.R.R.P. NO.29/2017 (EVI) SMT. MUNNI DEVI, MAJOR, W/O. SRI.CHAMPALAL JAIN, M/S. M.K.HOME DÉCOR, NO.110/2, D.S.LANE, CHICKPET CROSS, MAMULPET, BENGALURU 560053.
ALSO R/AT. NO.11/1-2, 2ND FLOOR, 5TH MAIN, 7TH CROSS, CHAMARAJPET, BENGALURU 560018.
(BY SRI. H.J.SANGHVI, ADV.) AND:
1. SRI.UTTAMCHAND JAIN, S/O. SRI.TARACHANDJI, …PETITIONER AGEDA BOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT. 2ND FLOOR, NO.110, BELLI BASAVANNA TEMPLE STREET, BENGALURU 560053.
2. M/S. M.K.GALLERY, NO.123, D.S.LANE, CHICKPET CROSS, MAMULPET, BENGALURU 560053.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI V.B.SHIVAKUMAR, ADV. FOR R1, R-2 – SERVED.) THIS HRRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 46(1) OF THE KARNATAKA RENT ACT, 1999 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 22.02.2017 PASSED BY THE CHIEF JUDGE OF SMALL CAUSES COURT, BANGALORE (SCCH-1) IN HRC NO.120/2015 THEREBY ALLOWING THE PETITION UNDER SECTON 27(2)(r) OF THE K.R. ACT, 1999 AND ALLOW THE REVISION PETITION.
THIS HRRP COMING ON FOR ADMISSION AND THE SAME HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 09.04.2018, THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the caveator respondent No.1.
2. Petitioner is the tenant who has suffered an order of eviction at the hands of the Trial Court, whereby the Trial Court has been pleased to allow the petition filed under Section 27(2)(r) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 and thereby was pleased to direct the petitioner to quit, vacate and deliver vacant possession of the schedule premises to the petitioner within three months from the date of the order.
3. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no jural relationship between the petitioner and the respondent.
4. It is the further case that the premises measures more than 14 square meters and hence, the petition invoking the provisions of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 is not maintainable, as the premises is one which does not come under the scope and ambit of Karnataka Rent Act, 1999. It was further contended that Smt.Ratna Bai, the mother of the respondent is the real owner and even today the rents are being collected by the said Smt.Ratna Bai and the rents are being paid by Sri.Vikram Kumar, who is the proprietor of M/s.M.K.Decor and the real tenant and that the petition filed without compliance of Sections 4 and 43 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 is not maintainable. That no documents are produced by the respondent landlord to demonstrate the jural relationship. That the Trial Court erred in not appreciating Ex.P-4, the rental receipt produced to demonstrate that Smt.Ratna Bai is the owner and that the petitioner is a stranger and he is not a landlord.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the petition schedule premises have been conveyed in favour of the petitioner under a registered settlement deed dated 30.11.2013 and that the documents conveyed title and the revenue documents evidence the conveyance of the title and the respondent landlord has been placed before the Trial Court and the Trial Court has rightly concluded with regard to the title of the respondent over the suit schedule premises and has also rendered a finding of fact that there is a jural relationship between the parties and he would reiterate the findings of the Trial Court. The Trial Court while allowing the petition has been pleased to frame the following two points for consideration:
“1) Whether the petitioner proves that there exists jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the respondents with respect to the petition schedule premises?
2) Whether the petitioner proves that he is in need of the schedule premises for bona fide use and occupation and thereby he is entitled to seek eviction of the respondent under Section 27(2)(r) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999?”
6. The Trial Court after looking into Ex.P-1 the settlement deed has rendered a finding that the petitioner is indeed the landlord of the premises. It has also recorded a finding that the 1st respondent became a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.3,000/-. It has also examined the defence of the petitioner – tenant, that one Vikram Kumar is the proprietor of M/s.M.K.Decor. It has also looked into the document marked as Ex.P-1 to P-15. In the course of cross-examination, it has been admitted by the respondent landlord that the premises was purchased by his father in the year 1965 and the same was demolished and a new complex has been constructed. It is further admitted that there are three shops in the ground floor and there is a godown in the first floor and that the instant petition is in respect of the second shop in the ground floor and the same measures 110 square feet. It is also admitted by the respondent landlord that the petition premises was let out in favour of the 1st respondent Munni Devi by his mother about 12 to 13 years ago and there is no rental agreement. He has admitted the fact that the initial rent was Rs.2,000/- p.m. and a security deposit was paid as advance of Rs.51,000/-. Ex.P-15 is the pass book in respect of joint account evidencing the transaction between 2011 and 2013.
7. In the course of cross-examination, it has been suggested to the respondent that the premises measures 177.97 square feet which suggestion has been denied. In support of the said contention, the petitioner has not let in any evidence nor produced any material to demonstrate the preliminary objection that the proceedings initiated are outside the scope of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999.
8. The petitioner is represented by her Power of Attorney holder, who is none other than her son and in the cross-examination, he has admitted that the cheques issued are in respect of the shop in the first floor occupied by one Champalal and one Champalal has occupied the shop in the second floor and the said Champalal issued cheque in respect of the 2nd floor premises. It is also admitted that they are in occupation of the ground, first and second floor premises only. It has also come out in the evidence that the respondent has issued cheques but the rent receipts have been denied as having been created including the counter foils and the rent receipts. But at the same time, he would admit the details of the cheques entered in the counter foils and he would also admit that the cheques have been issued by him and his mother and father. He would also admit having seen Ex.P-1 and has also reluctantly agreed that the respondent landlord might be the owner of the ground floor premises, after looking into Ex.P-1, the settlement deed. It is also admitted that prior to 10.12.2015 and 02.06.2016 there are no documents to demonstrate that Vikram Kumar was the tenant of the ground floor premises. The witnesses also were confronted with three electricity bills which suggest a fact that there was no power consumption in respect of the second floor premises and the same are marked as Ex.P-16 to P-18. He would also admit that there is no material to demonstrate the payment of any charges in respect of the power consumed by the second floor premises. Though it is asserted by the witness that Vikram Kumar is the tenant of the ground floor premises since the year 2009, he would categorically admit that he has no document or any other documents to demonstrate the said fact. He would also admit that he has no difficulty in getting the said Vikram Kumar before this Court and having him examined as a witness. It is also admitted that a letter dated 30.11.2013 was sent by erstwhile owner, the mother of the respondent intimating the tenant about the conveyance of the property. In the course of cross- examination, R.W.1 has volunteered to show that Vikram Kumar is carrying on business in the ground floor suit schedule premises prior to 01.06.2016. The said R.W.1 has admitted that the cheque bearing No.479483 has been issued by the petitioner in favour of Smt.Ratna Bai and is dated 01.06.2015 and it was accompanied by a letter dated 15.06.2015 and in the said letter it has been categorically stated that the rent is in respect of the ground floor premises for the period between 01.04.2014 to 30.06.2015 and the said letter is marked as Ex.P-19.
9. In the light of the above evidence, the Trial Court was justified in holding that the premises was infact tenanted by the petitioner. It has also been elicited in the cross-examination of the petitioner that the shop was let out about 12 to 13 years ago. If that be the accepted position, the fact that the claim of the shop being let out to Vikram Kumar stands falsified and in view of the evidence produced before the Court it would demonstrate that the said Vikram Kumar would have been aged about 14 years in the year 2001.
10. One other factor is that Ex.P-14(a) to (i) are the rent receipts issued in the name of Smt. Munni Devi in respect of the premises bearing No.110. The Trial Court has found that the rent receipts pertain to the year 2007-08. It has also found that the rents in respect of three premises have been paid on behalf of Munni Devi, Lalit and Champalal. The Trial Court has also come to the conclusion that the said Lalit is in occupation of the first floor and Champalal in occupation of the second floor. That being the admitted case, the only premises that is left is ground floor premises and hence, the Trial Court was right in concluding that the petitioner is the tenant of the ground floor premises.
11. The Trial Court has also placed reliance on the decision elicited during the cross-examination of R.W.1, where he has categorically admitted the issuance of cheque by Munni Devi, more particularly cheque bearing No.479483 and the letter dated 15.06.2015, whereunder it has been categorically admitted that the rents are in respect of the ground floor premises for the period between 01.04.2014 to 30.06.2015 and it is this admission which the Trial Court has placed reliance to conclude against the petitioner, the tenant herein.
12. The Trial Court has also tended to disbelieve the version and the defence set up that one Vikram Kumar was the tenant, as it has found that the said Vikram Kumar would have been merely aged about 14 years, according to the age reflected in the sale deed dated 28.04.2014 and has rightly brushed aside the defence as an unbelievable one. It has also tended to disbelieve the version of the petitioner – tenant in view of the fact that the said Vikram Kumar never made an attempt to come on record. The relationship between the petitioner and the said Vikram Kumar is not denied.
13. As regards the objection regarding maintainability, the Trial Court has also found that no material is placed to demonstrate that the same measures more than 14 square meters.
In that view of the matter, the petition fails. Accordingly, the petition under Section 46(1) stands rejected. Two months’ time is granted to the petitioner to quit, vacate and deliver vacant possession of the schedule premises to the respondent, subject to the condition of the petitioner filing an undertaking into Court, to vacate and handover possession to the respondent, failing which the respondent – landlord is free to seek execution of the judgment of the Trial Court.
Rsh Sd/- JUDGE