Take notes as you read a judgment using our Virtual Legal Assistant and get email alerts whenever a new judgment matches your query (Query Alert Service). Try out our Premium Member Services -- Sign up today and get free trial for one month.
Karnataka High Court
Sri. Venkatesh T vs Smt. Kamala Narayan on 9 May, 2024
Author: N S Sanjay Gowda
Bench: N S Sanjay Gowda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:17147
CRP No. 187 of 2024
C/W CRP No. 365 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF MAY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 187 OF 2024
C/W
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.365 OF 2023
IN C.R.P.No.187/2024:
BETWEEN:
1. SRI.VENKATESH.T.
S/O LAT THIMMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS,
'VARIETY FOOTWEAR'
NEW #45, OLD NUMBER 1606
MKK ROAD, OPPOSITE DEVAIAH PARK,
BENGALURU-560 021.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SRIDHARA., ADVOCATE)
Digitally AND:
signed by
KIRAN
KUMAR R
Location:
1. SMT.KAMALA NARAYAN,
HIGH W/O LATE T.C.NARAYAN @ NARAYANA,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA AGED ABOUT 88 YEARS,
R/AT #1000, 5TH CROSS, 1ST MAIN,
IDEAL HOMES TOWNSHIP,
R.R.NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 098.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. HEMANTH.S., ADVOCATE)
THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 18 OF KARNATAKA
SMALL CAUSE COURTS ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED
04.01.2024 PASSED IN SC.No.575/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE I
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:17147
CRP No. 187 of 2024
C/W CRP No. 365 of 2023
ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, PARTLY DECREEING THE
SUIT FOR EJECTMENT AND DAMAGERS.
IN C.R.P.No.365/2023:
BETWEEN:
1. SRI.B.H.SRIDHAR,
S/O B.P.HARI RAO,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
QUEENS STUDIO,
NEW #45, OLD NUMBER 1606
MKK ROAD, OPPOSITE DEVAIAH PARK,
BANGALORE-560 021.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MOHAMED NASIRUDDIN., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT.KAMALA NARAYAN,
W/O LATE T.C.NARAYAN @ NARAYANA,
AGED ABOUT 88 YEARS,
R/AT #1000, 5TH CROSS, 1ST MAIN,
IDEAL HOMES TOWNSHIP,
R.R.NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 098.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. HEMANTH.S., ADVOCATE)
THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 18 OF KARNATAKA
SMALL CAUSES COURT ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
DECREE DATED 01.04.2023 PASSED IN SC.No.574/2019 ON
THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE,
BENGALURU PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR EJECTMENT.
THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 25.04.2024, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:17147
CRP No. 187 of 2024
C/W CRP No. 365 of 2023
ORDER
1. Smt. Kamala Narayan--the respondent herein in both petitions instituted separate suits (SC No.574 of 2019 and SC No.575 of 2019) for eviction against B.H.Sridhar--the petitioner in CRP No.365 of 2023 and Sri.Venkatesh T.-- the petitioner in CRP No.187 of 2024.
2. She contended that she and her husband-- T.C.Narayan had purchased the suit properties on 04.12.1980 under a registered sale deed from Chandrashekar and, thereafter, her husband--T.C.Narayan passed away on 10.10.2008. It was stated that after the death of her husband, all the municipal entries were changed in her favour and she had become the owner of said properties.
3. She also stated that T.Venkatesh was a tenant paying a monthly rent of Rs.2,425/- and B.H.Sridhar was paying a rent of Rs.2,550/-. She stated that she had terminated the tenancy by issuance of quit notices to both and had called upon both of them to hand over the -4- NC: 2024:KHC:17147 CRP No. 187 of 2024 C/W CRP No. 365 of 2023 possession and, instead of handing over the possession, they had issued a vague reply, as a result of which she was constrained to initiate eviction proceedings.
4. B.H.Sridhar and T.Venkatesh contested the suits that were filed against them.
5. B.H.Sridhar denied the jural relationship and stated that Chandrashekaraiah had inducted his father--B.P.Hari Rao as a tenant on monthly rent. He stated that Chandrashekaraiah had passed away in the year 1962 leaving behind his sons and daughters as legal heirs and since he had died intestate, Kamala Narayan was only collecting the rents from various tenants on behalf of the legal heirs of Chandrashekaraiah and, therefore, she was not the owner of the shop premises to which Hari Rao was inducted. It was stated that the B.P.Hari Rao--the original tenant i.e., the father of B.H.Sridhar also passed away leaving behind his sons as legal heirs, who had succeeded to the leasehold rights and, therefore, the issuance of notice under reply to B.H.Sridhar alone was improper. -5-
NC: 2024:KHC:17147 CRP No. 187 of 2024 C/W CRP No. 365 of 2023
6. B.H.Sridhar also stated that the name of Kamala Narayan and her husband were wrongly mentioned in the notice and that her children were staying in the United States of America. A plea was also stated that Chandrashekaraiah had promised the tenants that he would sell the suit premises, but due to his sudden death, the sale did not fructify. He thus sought dismissal of the suit.
7. T.Venkatesh also contested the suit by filing a separate written statement. He also contended that the suit premises was owned by Chandrashekaraiah, who had leased it in favour of Thimmaiah--his father, and after the death of Thimmaiah, he was continuing the footwear business in the leased premises. He also stated that as per the instructions of Chandrashekaraiah, his father-- Thimmaiah had started paying monthly rent to Kamala Narayan and she was acting as a rent collector on behalf of Chandrashekaraiah.
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC:17147 CRP No. 187 of 2024 C/W CRP No. 365 of 2023
8. He stated that at no point in time did Kamala Narayan furnish any documents standing in her name with regard to the title that she possessed, and, therefore, he was not admitting that she was the owner of the suit premises and was recognizing her only as a rent collector. He submitted that in view of the above said facts, Kamala Narayan had no authority to initiate proceedings against him.
9. In both the suits, Kamala Narayan filed applications for amending the plaints in respect of the property numbers mentioned in the schedules wherein she sought substitution of the "Old No.1606" with "Old No.1605". These applications were allowed and additional written statements were permitted to be filed by the defendants.
10. In the additional written statement, both T.Venkatesh and B.H.Sridhar raised contentions that the quit notices that had been issued to them to terminate the tenancy was illegal since, admittedly, it was in respect of "Old No.1606" and by virtue of the fact that the suit was in -7- NC: 2024:KHC:17147 CRP No. 187 of 2024 C/W CRP No. 365 of 2023 fact filed in respect of the old No.1605. In other words, both of them contended that the tenancy had not been terminated as provided under the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 ("the Act") and the suit was thus liable to be dismissed.
11. The Trial Court on consideration of the evidence that is adduced before it had come to the conclusion that Kamala Narayan had purchased the suit properties along with her husband and after his death, she succeeded to the properties. The change of municipal records also indicates that she was the owner of the properties.
12. The Trial Court also took note of the fact that both T.Venkatesh and B.H.Sridhar had admitted that they were paying rents to Kamala Narayan. The Trial Court also took note of the fact that no document was produced to indicate that Chandrashekaraiah had entered into any written lease agreement with them and since they themselves admitted that they were paying rents to Kamala Narayan, it was clear that the tenancy was in fact -8- NC: 2024:KHC:17147 CRP No. 187 of 2024 C/W CRP No. 365 of 2023 admitted and also stood established by the fact that Kamala Narayan had purchased the suit properties along with her husband through a registered sale deed. In this regard, the judgment of the Supreme Court cited by the counsel for the petitioner in Giridharasa Narayanasa Kategar1 is of no assistance, since the matter adjudicated therein was clearly on the basis of an existing registered lease deed, which is absent in the present case.
13. As for the amendment to the plaints regarding "Old No.1605" and "Old No.1606" as well as the contention taken that there is no valid termination, the Trial Court has come to the conclusion that though the notices indicated property as "Old No.1606", the notices had been issued to T.Venkatesh and B.H.Sridhar--who admittedly were tenants and, hence, there was no need for issuance of fresh quit notices and the ones that had already been issued were sufficient to determine the tenancy. 1 Giridharasa Narayanasa Kategar v. Jagadguru Gangadhar Dharma, Pracharak Mandali, AIR 2021 Kar 187.
-9-
NC: 2024:KHC:17147 CRP No. 187 of 2024 C/W CRP No. 365 of 2023
14. The Trial Court accordingly came to the conclusion that the jural relationship had been proved and the tenancy had been terminated, and as a consequence, both B.H.Sridhar and T.Venkatesh were liable to hand over the possession of the suit properties. It accordingly passed decrees and also ordered for a separate enquiry to be conducted in respect of the claim for damages.
15. As against these separate judgments, B.H.Sridhar and T.Venkatesh are in revision before this Court by filing the present revisions petitions separately.
16. The learned counsel representing B.H.Sridhar and T.Venkatesh strenuously contended that the entire proceedings stood vitiated by virtue of the fact that no quit notice had been issued in respect of the actual property i.e., Old No.1605 and issuance of a quit notice in respect of Old No.1606 would be invalid. They therefore contended that the tenancy had not stood terminated and, as a consequence, the initiation of the eviction proceedings was illegal.
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17147 CRP No. 187 of 2024 C/W CRP No. 365 of 2023
17. It was also sought to be contended that B.H.Sridhar and T.Venkatesh had contended recognising Kamala Narayan as rent collector and not as the owner of the suit properties, and that the Small Cause Court did not have the jurisdiction to record a finding regarding the title of Kamala Narayan.
18. At the outset, it has to be stated here that the requirement of issuance of a notice under Section 106 of the Act is to essentially notify a tenant that the landlord does not wish to continue the tenancy any longer and that he was required to hand over the vacant possession, and the tenant was being granted fifteen days as provided under Section 106 of the Act to hand over the possession.
19. The requirement of the law is only to notify a tenant that the tenancy was being terminated and the time as provided under Section 106 of the Act was being granted to hand over possession. The moment a tenant is notified by the landlord about the landlord's inclination to
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17147 CRP No. 187 of 2024 C/W CRP No. 365 of 2023 discontinue the tenancy, the requirement of the law is complete in all respects.
20. The argument that the wrong property number i.e., Old No.1606 was mentioned in the notice which was corrected only after filing of the suits had rendered the quit notices invalid, would not be an argument with any substance.
21. Firstly, Section 106 of the Act does not require that the intimation to the tenant about the termination of the tenancy should contain a description of the property in respect of which the notice was issued. In a case in which the landlord is required to notify the tenant, the question of describing the property would not be necessarily essential because, both the landlord and the tenant are aware of the property which was the subject matter of the lease. Therefore, even if a property number was improperly described, that, by itself, would not vitiate the notice that had been issued under Section 106 of the Act.
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17147 CRP No. 187 of 2024 C/W CRP No. 365 of 2023
22. It has to be also stated here that there is no requirement under Section 106 of the Act to describe the property that was the subject matter of the lease.
23. There is yet another factor which is to be taken note of. The quit notice that had been issued indicated both numbers--the new number as well as the old number. Both B.H.Sridhar and T.Venkatesh did not deny that the new number that was mentioned in the quit notices as No.45, was incorrect. They also did not put forth the plea that the quit notices were invalid because the old number was wrongly shown as "Old No.1606".
24. An argument was, however, advanced by the learned counsel for B.H.Sridhar that in the reply notice, it had been stated that the boundaries and measurements mentioned in the schedule are not accurate and, therefore, a contention had been taken up regarding the schedule.
25. This argument cannot be accepted since, even according to the claim in the reply, the only grievance was
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17147 CRP No. 187 of 2024 C/W CRP No. 365 of 2023 regarding boundaries and measurements, and B.H.Sridhar did not really put forth the plea that the quit notice was in respect of the premises to which his father had been inducted.
26. It may be pertinent to state here that even in the reply submitted by T.Venkatesh, he only stated that the measurements of the leased premises as shown in the schedule were not correct. He thus did not raise any claim regarding the mentioning of the wrong number of the property. A reading of the reply would also indicate that the reply was given on the premise that he was a tenant and was in occupation of the premises leased to his father. This would therefore indicate that no contention as such was raised by T.Venkatesh regarding the termination notice was invalid because of wrong property number being mentioned.
27. It has to be stated here that both B.H.Sridhar and T.Venkatesh were aware of the fact that they were tenants and that the person who had issued the notice was,
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17147 CRP No. 187 of 2024 C/W CRP No. 365 of 2023 according to them, the rent collector and was calling upon them to hand over the possession. Since both of them were aware that a demand was being made by the rent collector calling upon them to hand over the possession, it was obvious that they were aware that the tenancy was being terminated and that they were liable to hand over the possession.
28. The fact that the Trial Court has recorded that Kamala Narayan had purchased the properties jointly along with her husband and the further fact that both B.H.Sridhar and T.Venkatesh admitted that they were paying rents to Kamala Narayan would therefore clearly establish that she was only the owner and was entitled to seek ejectment.
29. In my view, the Trial Court was justified in coming to the conclusion that the tenancies in favour of B.H.Sridhar and T.Venkatesh have been rightly determined and both of them were liable to be evicted.
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17147 CRP No. 187 of 2024 C/W CRP No. 365 of 2023
30. I see no infirmity in the judgment and decrees passed by the Trial Court and, consequently, both civil revision petitions are dismissed.
31. However, it may be necessary to grant some reasonable time to both T.Venkatesh and B.H.Sridhar to vacate the suit premises under the facts and circumstances of the present case. In my view, it would be appropriate to grant them three months' time from today to quit and deliver the vacant possession to Kamala Narayan, subject to them undertaking that they would quit and deliver the vacant possession of the suit premises and would also continue to pay the rents regularly, even for said period of three months.
32. They should also undertake that they shall not induct any third parties or create any encumbrances in respect of the suit premises which they are in possession of.
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17147 CRP No. 187 of 2024 C/W CRP No. 365 of 2023
33. The undertakings as indicated above shall be filed by them within a period of two weeks from the date of this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE RK/ CT: SN