IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.537 OF 2018 BETWEEN:
1. SRI. RAMACHANDRA PULVARISERS AND INDUSTRIES (A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNERS) HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.23 4TH MAIN ROAD NEW THARAGUPETE BENGLAURU 560002.
2. SRI. PRABHAKAR GUPTA PARTNER SRI. RAMACHANDRA PULVARISERS AND INDUSTREIS HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.23 4TH MAIN ROAD NEW THARAGUPETE BENGLAURU 560002.
(By Mr. V.B. SHIVA KUMAR, ADV.,) AND:
SMT. MADHAVI N. GUNASHEELA D/O LATE DR. M. GUNASHEELA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT NO. 604, 15TH CROSS 29TH MAIN, 1ST PHASE JP NAGAR, BENGLAURU 560078.
(By Mr. D.L. JAGADEESH, SR. COUNSEL A/W Ms. RAKSHITHA D.J., ADV.,) … PETITIONERS … RESPONDENT THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 18 OF THE SMALL CAUSES COURT ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 04.10.2018 PASSED IN S.C.NO.1943/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE XIII ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR POSSESSION AND ARREARS OF RENT & ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Mr.V.B.Shiva Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.D.L.Jagadeesh, learned Senior counsel along with Ms.Rakshitha D.J., for the respondent.
2. Heard on the question of admission. The petition is admitted for hearing. With consent of the parties, the same is heard finally.
3. In this revision petition under Section 19 of the Karnataka Small Cause Courts Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) the petitioner has assailed the validity of order dated 04.10.2018, by which the suit for eviction filed by the respondent has been decreed with costs and the defendant has been directed to pay arrears of rent as well.
4. Facts giving rise to filing of the petition brief stated are that the late Dr.M.Gunasheela who is the father of the petitioners was absolute owner of the suit property and he let out the same to the petitioner. After the death of late Dr.M.Gunasheela, the suit property under a family settlement was allotted in favour of respondent. The petitioners therefore by operation of law became tenants of the respondent. However, the petitioners made persistent defaults in making payment of the rent. Thereupon, a notice dated 01.11.2015 was issued calling upon the petitioners to make payment of rent and to deliver vacant possession. Thereafter, the suit was filed seeking the relief of eviction and arrears of rent. The petitioners filed the written statement, in which relationship of landlord and tenant was denied. The petitioners also disputed the right of the plaintiff to file the suit. The Trial Court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, framed the issues and decreed the suit by impugned judgment. Being aggrieved, this petition has been filed.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned judgment passed by the Trial Court is illegal and erroneous. It is further submitted that the Trial Court ought to have appreciated that since there was no letter of attornment, therefore, the court below committed an error of law in not appreciating that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It is further submitted that petitioners are entitled to the benefit of Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 and therefore, the court of small causes had no jurisdiction to try the suit. In support of aforesaid submission, reliance has been placed on ‘SMITA JAIN VS. N.A.PARAMESHWAR’ in CRP No.1141/2012 dated 25.06.2013 On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has supported the judgment passed by the Trial Court.
6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have produced the record. The Trial Court has admittedly held that the suit property belonged to Dr.Gunasheela and admittedly the petitioners were the tenants under the aforesaid Dr.Gunasheela. It has further been held that admittedly the defendant is in possession of the suit property. The Trial Court has taken into consideration the evidence of Plaintiff Witness No.2 and has held that as per the family settlement, the suit property was allotted to the respondent. The Trial Court has also taken into consideration, the registered partition deed Exhibit P9, Katha certificate by Exhibit P2 and Khatha Extract Ex.P3 and has held that suit property has devolved on the respondent. The defendants continued in the suit premises as tenants of Dr.Gunasheela on a monthly rent of Rs.2000/-. In view of the agreement of tenancy dated 19.06.1988 and admittedly the respondent is the daughter of Dr.gunasheela therefore, the defendants have become tenants of the plaintiff by operation of law. It has also been held that suit properties measure more than 14 Sq.mts. Therefore, the court has jurisdiction to try the suit. It has further been held that Plaintiff Witness No.1 has deposed in his evidence that defendants are in arrears of rent from 01.12.1997. However, the respondent claimed rent for a period of three years i.e., from 15.03.2013 to till date. The plaintiff has filed the suit after a lapse of 15 days from the date of termination of tenancy under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1881 vide Exhibit P4. Accordingly, the suit has been decreed.
7. The findings recorded by the Trial Court are based on meticulous appreciation of evidence on record and by no stretch of imagination can be said to be perverse or based on no evidence. So far as submission that petitioners are entitled to the benefit of Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 and therefore, is entitled to seek the benefit of the provisions of the aforesaid Act is concerned, suffice it to say, that no such plea was taken by the petitioners before the Trial Court and no issue has been framed in this regard. In any case, the aforesaid issue is a mixed question of law and fact and cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time in this revision. Therefore, no case for interference in exercise of revision jurisdiction is made out. However, since the petitioners are in possession of the premises in question, therefore, it is necessary to grant him reasonable time to vacate the same. The petitioners are granted time to vacate the premises subject to following conditions:
(i) The petitioners shall furnish an undertaking before the Trial Court within two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order passed today. It is directed that on or before 31.07.2019 they shall hand over the possession of the suit premises in a peaceful manner to the respondent without creating any encumbrance in respect of the suit property.
(ii) The petitioners shall deposit entire arrears of rent within four weeks from today before the Trial Court and shall continue to deposit monthly rent till the petitioners are in occupation of the suit property.
(iii) In case of violation of any of the terms and conditions mentioned above, the decree for eviction shall become executed forthwith.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE ss