IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JULY 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAGHVENDRA S. CHAUHAN Writ Petition No.30221/2017 (HRC) Between :
Rajesh Malohotra S/o. P. K. Malohotra, Aged about 50 years, Prop. M/S/Anmol Telecom, No.13, Muniswamappa Lane, Tigalarapete, Bangalore-560002. …Petitioner (By Sri Chandrashekar M. S. Advocate) And :
1. Smt. Krishnamma W/o. Late Y. Gopallappa, Aged about 62 years.
2. Ragavendra S/o. Late Y. Gopallappa, Aged about 41 years.
Both are residing at No.12, Muniswamappa Lane, Thigalarapete, Bangalore-560002. …Respondents This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India praying to set aside the orders passed by the Hon’ble Small Cause Judge Dated 30.6.2017 in H.R.C. No.79/2016 on interlocutory application under order XXVI Rule 10-A Annexure-E and etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for preliminary hearing this day, the Court made the following :
ORDER The petitioner has challenged the legality of the order dated 30.6.2017, passed by the learned Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru, whereby the learned Judge has rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Order XXVI Rule 10-A of CPC.
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 claim to be the absolute owners and in possession of the shop premises situated in the ground floor of the property bearing No.13, Muniswamappa Lane, Thigalarapete, Bengaluru. The katha of the said property stands in the name of the respondent No.2 Sri Ragavendra. According to the respondents, the petitioner Mr. Rajesh Malhotra, is a tenant and had taken the shop on a monthly rent of Rs.3,000/- per month, including the charges of electricity and water. However, the respondents claim that they are in bona fide need of the shop premises, and therefore, they had filed a civil suit for evicting the petitioner from the shop premises. The petitioner, as the respondent before the learned trial Court, had filed his objections to the claim. In the objections, he had clearly admitted the existence of jural relationship of the landlord and the tenant between the respondent Nos.1 and 2 on the one hand, and the petitioner on the other.
3. Further, during the proceedings before the trial Court, the xerox copy of the Lease Deed was produced, and was marked as Ex.P-8. Although the learned trial Court had directed the petitioner to produce the original copy of the Lease Deed, Ex.P-8, he had taken a stand that he no longer has the original copy of the Lease Agreement. Upon such a stand, the Lease Agreement was marked as Ex.P-8, and was taken as a secondary piece of evidence. But almost at the conclusion of the trial, the petitioner filed his application under Order XXVI, Rule 10-A of CPC. However, by the order dated 30.6.2017, the learned trial Court has rejected the application. Hence, this petition before this Court.
4. Mr. Chandrashekar M. S., the learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that since the petitioner has denied his signature on the Lease Agreement, it is essential that the Lease Agreement be sent to hand writing expert for his opinion. Therefore, the learned trial Court has erred in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner. Hence, the impugned order deserves to be set aside by this Court.
5. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is clearly unacceptable. For, firstly, the petitioner has admitted the jural relationship of landlord and tenant between him, and respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Secondly, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 have filed the Eviction Petition on the ground of bona fide necessity. Therefore, the petitioner cannot say that his signatures on the Lease Agreement are forged. Once the relationship of landlord and tenant has been admitted by the petitioner, both in his written statement, and in his testimony, the Lease Agreement is not of much significance.
Moreover, even after the petitioner was directed by the learned trial Court to produce the original copy of the Lease Agreement, he has claimed that it is no longer available with him. Thus, he has failed to produce the Lease Agreement.
Lastly, the learned trial Court has clearly observed that the application has been filed at a belated stage. Thus, it is a clever ploy to prolong the litigation so as to evade the judgment day.
Therefore, this Court does not find any merit in the present writ petition. It is, hereby, dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE *bk/-