Karnataka High Court
Mr. Leeladhara vs Mr. Vevek Mohan Shenoy on 31 July, 2024
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:30179
HRRP No. 29 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
HOUSE RENT REV. PETITION NO. 29 OF 2020
BETWEEN:
MR. LEELADHARA
S/O.LATE. MUDDANNA,
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
R/AT DOOR NO. 7-11-1101,
NEAR FORMER RAMAKRISHNA OIL MILLS,
SULTHAN BATTERY ROAD,
MANGALURU 575 006.
SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY HIS
LEGAL HEIRS
1(A) SMT. YASHODHA,
W/O LATE LEELADHARA,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
R/AT DOOR NO.7-11-1101,
NEAR FORMER RAMAKRISHNA OIL MILLS,
SULTHAN BATTERY ROAD,
Digitally signed MANGALURU - 575 006.
by SHARADA
VANI B 1(B) SMT. BHAVYA,
Location: HIGH W/O DEVADAS,
COURT OF D/O LATE LEELADHARA,
KARNATAKA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
R/AT DOOR NO.1-25-2072
SRI SAINATH HOUSE, URWA,
NEAR JOY DRINKS LINE,
BOLOOR, MANGALORE,
D.K.- 575 006.
1(C) SMT. MANDAKINI,
W/O SATHEESHA KUMAR,
D/O LATE LEELADHARA,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:30179
HRRP No. 29 of 2020
R/AT #22-3-4 DEVI KRIPA,
KREC ROAD, A D BANGERA COMPOUND,
MADHYA PADAVU, MANDYA,
D.K. - 575 030.
1(D) SMT. NISHITHA,
W/O LOKESH,
D/O LATE LEELADHARA,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
R/AT 1-116, BALAJI PAKKALADKA,
CHURCH ROAD, BAJAL, MANGALORE,
D.K.- 575 027.
1(E) SMT. DEEKSHITHA,
W/O SURESH POOJARY,
D/O LATE LEELADHARA,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
R/AT 1-86, TILAKNAGAR,
AMBLAMOGARU, D.K- 575 017.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. ANANDARAMA K.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
MR. VEVEK MOHAN SHENOY
S/O. LATE. MOHAN SHENOY,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
R/AT SOHUM, ANEGUNDI ROAD,
BEJAI, MANGALURU 575 004.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. VIJAYA KRISHNA BHAT M.,ADVOCATE)
THIS HRRP FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF THE CPC., 1908
R/W. SEC.46 OF THE KARNATAKA RENT ACT.1999 AGAINST
THE ORDER DATED 30.11.2020 PASSED IN RRP NO.11/2019
ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, DAKSHINA KANNADA, MANGALURU DISMISSING THE
PETITION FILED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 24.09.2019
PASSED IN HRC NO.2/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL.CIVIL
JUDGE MANGALURU D.K. PARTLY ALLOWING PETITION FILED
UNDER SEC.27(2) (p) AND (r) AND 42 OF KARNATAKA RENT
ACT. 1999 FOR EVICTION.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:30179
HRRP No. 29 of 2020
THIS HRRP COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
ORAL ORDER
Heard learned counsel Sri Anandarama.K. and Sri Vijaya Krishna Bhat.M.
2. The revision petitioner as per the respondent is a tenant in respect of building bearing No. 7-11-1101, 1102 & 1103 situated at Boloor village in Mangaluru city. The respondent filed eviction petition under the provisions of Sec.27(2)(p) & (r) and Sec.42 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999. The said petition was opposed by revision petitioner herein inter alia contending that he is the owner of the premises by adverse possession and in fact he has constructed the said building and therefore the eviction petition is not maintainable.
3. The learned Judge in the trial court, after hearing the parties dismissed the application filed u/s.43 of the Rent Act and allowed the eviction petition.
4. Being aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner filed a Rent Revision Petition before the District Court, Mangalore in R.R.P.No.11/2019.
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:30179 HRRP No. 29 of 2020
5. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records heard the parties in detail and by order dated 30.11.2020 has dismissed the revision petition filed by the present revision petitioner.
6. Thereafter, the petitioner is before this court. Sri Anandarama, learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, contended that both the courts have not properly appreciated the material evidence on record and wrongly passed an order of eviction resulting in miscarriage of justice and sought for present petition to be admitted for further consideration.
7. Per contra Sri Vijaya Krishna Bhat learned counsel for the respondent-landlord supports the impugned judgment.
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material on record, the lis dates back to the year 1975 whereunder, the revision petitioner herein filed an application under Form No.7 before the Land Tribunal claiming to be the tenant in respect of the land as well as the building in question after the promulgation of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. -5-
NC: 2024:KHC:30179 HRRP No. 29 of 2020
9. The said proceedings ended in the dismissal of the application filed by the revision petitioner under Form No.7 as not maintainable taking note of the fact that the land in question was not an agricultural land as admittedly it contained a building thereon.
10. For the reasons best known to the revision petitioner, he did not challenge the order of the Land Tribunal.
11. Thereafter, the respondent herein filed the eviction petition in the year 2015. The eviction petition was contested as aforesaid inter alia by filing an application u/s.43 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 questioning the very jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the revision petitioner and the respondent herein. The matter was contested and by order dated 24.09.2019, the eviction petition came to be allowed, dismissing the application filed u/s.43 of the Rent Act, whereby the eviction court recorded a categorical finding that there existed a jural relationship between the revision petitioner and the respondent and the presumption available to the landlord u/s.27(2) of the Karnataka Rent Act was not rebutted by placing necessary evidence on record by the revision petitioner.
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC:30179 HRRP No. 29 of 2020
12. Being aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner filed a Rent Revision Petition before the District Court, Mangalore. The learned Judge after securing the records and considering the rival contentions of the parties, categorically recorded a finding that there existed a jural relationship between the revision petitioner and the respondent of tenant and landlord and the material on record was sufficient enough to uphold the said finding recorded by the learned trial Judge and also following the dictum of this court in the case of B.C.SATHYANARAYANA vs. B.N.JAGANTHA RAO, 2006(4) KCCR 2125, wherein this court has considered the scope and ambit and the philosophy behind the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 dismissed the revision petition filed by the tenant.
13. Thereafter the tenant is before this court in the second revision.
14. Having heard the arguments, this court considered the rival contentions of the parties having regard to the scope of the second revision. The contentions urged on behalf of the revision petitioner is basically that he is not a tenant at all and his possession is protected by way of adverse possession. -7-
NC: 2024:KHC:30179 HRRP No. 29 of 2020
15. Admittedly at an undisputed point of time the petitioner claimed that he was a tenant before the Land Tribunal. It is to be noticed that at that juncture the application filed in Form No.7 was filed by the revision petitioner to take advantage of a beneficial piece of legislation which has come into force. When the petitioner has made an unequivocal submission at that point of time that he was a tenant, from what date he started enjoying property adversely to the interest of the owner that is the respondent in this revision petition is absent in the pleadings.
16. It is to be noted that if some person claims the possession over a property by way of adverse possession, the rules of pleadings would mandate such a person to plead three necessary ingredients, namely nec vi, nec clam, and nec precario, meaning thereby on what date the person who claims adverse possession came into the possession of the property, what was the nature of his possession and whether the factum of possession was known to the other party and how long his possession continued and whether his possession was open and undisturbed.
17. On a careful perusal of the objection statement filed by the revision petitioner before the eviction court, except making a -8- NC: 2024:KHC:30179 HRRP No. 29 of 2020 bald statement that he is in possession of the property and he has perfected his title by adverse possession, all other parameters with regard to the rules of pleading referred to supra are absent.
18. On record to prove adverse possession, it is also pertinent to note that no proof is also forthcoming as the revision petitioner was focused on the jural relationship rather than establishing other aspects of the matter for which the burden was definitely on the revision petitioner.
19. All these factors has been rightly appreciated by both the courts in negating the stand taken by the revision petitioner and consequently taking advantage of the presumption available to the landlord under the statute, passed an order of eviction against the revision petitioner.
20. In the considered opinion of this court, both the orders passed by the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court and the learned Judge of the trial court does not suffer from any legal infirmity or patent factual defect inviting the interference of this court that too in the second revision.
21. Accordingly, the following:
-9-
NC: 2024:KHC:30179 HRRP No. 29 of 2020 ORDER
(i) The Revision Petition is meritless and hereby dismissed.
(ii) Taking note of the fact that some reasonable breathing time is to be given for the revision petitioner to vacate and handover the premises, time is granted till 31.08.2024 to the revision petitioner to handover the peaceful possession of the premises to the respondent.
(iii) An undertaking to be filed in this regard by the revision petitioner within two weeks from today.
Sd/-
(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE Snb/ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34