Smt B Laxmidevi S Rao vs Sri B R Prakash
2021 Latest Caselaw 3436 Kant

                           1             CRP NO.200 OF 2021




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2021

                        BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

                 CRP NO.200 OF 2021

BETWEEN:

1.   SMT. B. LAXMIDEVI S. RAO
     W/O LATE B.N. SRINIVAS RAO
     AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS
     R/AT 1722, 41ST A CROSS
     18TH MIN ROAD, OPP. KARUMARI TEMPLE
     GRAPE GARDEN, 4TH 'T' BLOCK
     JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560011

     AND ALSO IN OCCUPATION OF
     SHOP NO.1, OLD NO.650/1, NEW NO.1
     10TH D MAIN, 4TH BLOCK
     JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560011

2.   MR. RAVINDRA
     AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
     S/O NARASIMHA BHATTA
     SHOP NO.1, OLD NO.650/1, NEW NO.1
     10TH D MAIN, 4TH BLOCK
     JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560011
                                            ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. VEDA MURTHY.M.V, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.   SRI. B.R. PRAKASH
     S/O LATE B RAMA RAO
     AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
                                 2               CRP NO.200 OF 2021




2.   SMT. GEETHA PRAKASH
     W/O SRI. B.R. PRAKASH
     AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS

     BOTH 1 & 2 ARE REPRESENTED
     BY THEIR GPA HOLDER
     SRI. AMITH PRAKASH
     AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
     S/O SRI. B.R. PRAKASH
     NO.1, 1ST MAIN ROAD, N.R. COLONY
     BENGALURU-560 010

3.   MR. AHMED ALIAS GANESHA
     AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
     S/O UNKNOWN
     SHOP NO.1 OLD NO.650/1 NEW NO.1
     4TH BLOCK, 10TH D MAIN, JAYANAGAR
     BENGALURU-560 011
                                          ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. C.V. SRINIVASA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2)

     THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 18 OF THE
KARNATAKA SMALL CAUSES COURT ACT 1964, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT DATED 20.07.2021 PASSED IN SC.NO.584/2019 ON
THE FILE OF THE XXI ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE,
BENGALURU, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR EJECTMENT.

     THIS CRP COMING ON FOR ORDERS AND HAVING BEEN
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 22.09.2021, THIS DAY, THE COURT
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

                                ORDER

1. The Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the

following reliefs:

"WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records from the Trial Court pertaining to S.C. No.584/2019 to examine the legality, validity and propriety of the judgment dated 20.07.2021 passed 3 CRP NO.200 OF 2021

by the XXI and XIX Addl. Small causes and Addl. MACT, Bangalore (SCCH-23) and set aside the same by allowing the Revision Petition. And grant such other reliefs as the Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case in the ends of justice."

2. S.C. No.584/2019 filed by the respondent herein

before the XXI & XIX Addl. Small Causes and Addl.

MACT (SCH-23) in respect of shop bearing No.1,

which is part of Old No.650/1, New No.1, IV Block,

10th 'D' Main, Jayanagar, Bengaluru- 560 011

seeking for eviction of the Petitioner.

3. The Petitioner appeared before the trial Court and

filed his written statement contending that there is

no jural relationship between the petitioners and

respondents No.2 and 3 to give a cause of action to

institute the suit. In response to the legal notice

dated 25.01.2019 issued by respondents No.1 and 2,

the Petitioner had called upon respondents No.1 and

2 to furnish authenticated copies of the documents

relied upon in the said legal notice. Instead of

complying with the same, respondents No.1 and 2 4 CRP NO.200 OF 2021

advised the Petitioners to obtain the certified copies

of the said documents. It is contended that there is

no attornment of tenancy in any manner required.

Though it is contended that respondents No.1 and 2

have become owners in the year 2005, they could

not have issued the legal notice after 14 years, i.e.

on 25.01.2019, and that Petitioners is in default of

payment of rentals. It was further denied that the

Petitioner had sub-let a portion of the shop on daily

rental of Rs.300/- per day. It is contended that the

Petitioner could not lead his evidence in the matter

due to her ill health and for other reasons beyond

her control.

4. Accepting the evidence, both oral and documentary

produced by respondents No.1 and 2, the trial Court

decreed the suit directing the Petitioner to handover

the suit schedule property in favour of respondents

No.1 and 2 within one month from the date of the

order and as also make payment of arrears of rent of 5 CRP NO.200 OF 2021

Rs.5,400/-. Since defendant No.1 and 2 have no

independent right, it was held that they had no right

to squat over the suit schedule property and their

tenancy was also duly terminated. The trial Court

also directed an inquiry into mesne profits under

Order 20 Rule 12 of CPC. It is aggrieved by the

same that the Petitioner is before this Court.

5. Sri.B.V.Shankarnarayana Rao, learned counsel for

the Petitioner, would contend that:

5.1. The trial Court has not considered the

objection of the Petitioner herein that there

was no jural relationship between the

petitioner and respondents No.1 and 2 to give

rise to a cause of action to institute the suit.

5.2. There is no attornment of tenancy, and that

the legal notice issued after a period of 14

years from the date on which respondents

No.1 and 2 became owners is not permissible.

6 CRP NO.200 OF 2021

5.3. The trial court ought to have appreciated the

comparative hardship inasmuch as the

Petitioner if were to be evicted; the Petitioner

would be thrown out of the premises causing

tremendous inconvenience to the Petitioner

and on this basis, he submits that the

Judgment and decree passed by the trial Court

is required to be set aside.

6. Per contra, Sri.C.V.Srinivas, who has entered an

appearance for the respondents by filing caveat, has

filed an objection to the petition, and relying on the

same, he submits that:

6.1. The Judgment and decree impugned in the

present proceedings is proper and correct and

does not require any interference at the hands

of this Court.

6.2. Vacant site bearing No.650 situated at IV

block, 10th Main, Jayanagar, Bangalore had 7 CRP NO.200 OF 2021

been allotted to Sathyanarayana on

24.09.1959, who agreed to sell the same to

Sri.G.S.Ramaswamy and had executed a sale

deed on 22.04.1981 in favour of

Sri.S.G.Ramaswamy who had constructed

seven shops in the year 1973, which were

assessed to municipal taxes which were paid

by said G.S.Ramaswamy.

6.3. One B.N.Srinivas Rao had approached

G.S.Ramaswamy to let out one shop on

lease/rent for her business activities, and

hence, G.S.Ramaswamy had executed an

agreement in respect of shop No.1 out of the

said seven shops. G.S.Ramaswamy expired on

11.06.1988, leaving behind nine legal heirs.

Said B.N.Srinivas Rao became the tenant

under the nine legal heirs of G.S.Ramaswamy.

After the death of B.N.Srinivas Rao, his wife 8 CRP NO.200 OF 2021

Smt.B.Laxmidevi became a tenant under the

plaintiffs.

6.4. Nine legal representatives of G.S.Ramaswamy

sold the property in favour of B.R.Prakash,

B.R.Krishna Prasad, Geetha Prakash, Smitha

Krishna Prasad on 26.11.1992, and a notice

came to be issued attorning the tenancy on

26.11.1992. Consequently, Smt.B.Laxmidevi

became a tenant under the aforesaid persons

who released their shares in favour of

respondents No.1 and 2 through a registered

release deed dated 19.04.2005. Consequently,

the Petitioner became a tenant only under

respondents No.1 and 2. The tenancy having

already been attorned in favour of nine

persons, a mere release would not amount to

creating of a fresh tenancy inasmuch as it is by

way of release complete rights in the property

vested with respondents No.1 and 2.

9 CRP NO.200 OF 2021

6.5. Recognizing and said release of ownership in

favour of respondents No.1 and 2, the

Petitioner continued to make payment of

rentals until the year 2001 when she became a

defaulter, and she stopped making payment of

the rentals despite making use of the aforesaid

shop.

6.6. It is in this background that after persistent

follow-up not yielding any result that the legal

notice 25.01.2019 was issued, receipt of which

is not disputed by the Petitioner.

6.7. By virtue of the said notice, tenancy came to

be terminated, and as such, the Petitioner was

bound to surrender the vacant physical

possession of the scheduled premises on the

forenoon of 14.02.2019, which not having

been done S.C.No.584/2019 was filed which was

contested by the Petitioner.

10 CRP NO.200 OF 2021

6.8. The Petitioner filed objections, contested the

matter, cross-examined respondents No.1 and

2. Petitioner No.2 got himself examined as

DW-1, produced documents, marked Exhibits-

D1 to D3 and so also cross-examined.

6.9. The contention of the Petitioner is that there is

no jural relationship between the Petitioner

and respondents and the respondents are not

the landlord of the Petitioner and as such, on

this short ground, the petition is required to be

allowed and the eviction proceedings before

the trial Court be dismissed.

6.10. The trial Court has appreciated all evidence

which have been produced by respondents

No.1 and 2 in a proper and correct perspective.

The tenancy having been admitted and rentals

having been paid, the Petitioner has taken a

11 CRP NO.200 OF 2021

are not the owners of the property, and a

tenant cannot be heard or allowed to take up

such a contention.

6.11. All the above facts establish that the

Petitioner-tenant is seeking to abuse the

process of this Court and therefore, there is no

equitable consideration required to be given to

the Petitioner and this Court ought to dismiss

the above petition there being no ground which

has been made out in the said matter.

6.12. In this regard, Sri.C.V.Srinivasa, learned

counsel for the Petitioner, relies upon the

following decisions:

6.13. Debasish Sinha -v- Sreejib Sinha &

others- [Special Leave to Appeal (C)

No.4148/2020, more particularly the

observations in paragraph 2 is reproduced

hereunder for easy reference:

12 CRP NO.200 OF 2021

"2. We are not satisfied with merely dismissing the special leave petition as some signal must be sent to discourage this nature of litigation. We , thus while dismissing the SLP impose the following directions :

1) The execution be satisfied within a period of 15 days from this order being placed before the trial Court.

2) Damages be computed by the executing Court at the market rates against the Petitioner from the date of filing the objection i.e. 26.03.2010 till possession is taken and this process be completed within a period of three months.

3) The Petitioner for wastage of judicial time and for dragging on the proceedings be burdened with costs of Rs. 1 lakh to be paid to the respondent within the same period of three months.

The special leave petition is dismissed in terms aforesaid."

6.14. The decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil

Appeal No. 7988/2004 between M/s Atma

Ram Properties -v- Federal Motors Pvt.

Ltd., wherein it has been held thus:

"Ordinarily this Court does not interfere with discretionary orders, more so when they are of interim nature, passed by the High Court or subordinate Courts/Tribunals. However, this appeal raises an issue of frequent recurrence and, therefore, we have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. Landlord-tenant litigation constitutes a large chunk of litigation pending in the Courts and 13 CRP NO.200 OF 2021

Tribunals. The litigation goes on for unreasonable length of time and the tenants in possession of the premises do not miss any opportunity of filing appeals or revisions so long as they can thereby afford to perpetuate the life of litigation and continue in occupation of the premises. If the plea raised by the learned senior counsel for the respondent was to be accepted, the tenant, in spite of having lost at the end, does not loose anything and rather stands to gain as he has enjoyed the use and occupation of the premises, earned as well a lot from the premises if they are non-residential in nature and all that he is held liable to pay is damages for use and occupation at the same rate at which he would have paid even otherwise by way of rent and a little amount of costs which is generally insignificant."

6.15. The decision of the Apex Court in the case of

Anar Devi (Smt.) -v- Nathu Ram [(1994) 4

SCC 250] more particularly paragraph 13

thereof which is reproduced hereunder for easy

reference :

"13. This Court in Sri Rain Pasricha v. Jagannath AIR (1976) SC 2355, has also ruled that in a suit for eviction by landlord, the tenant is estopped from questioning the title of the landlord because of Section 116 of the Act. The Judicial Committee in Kumar Krishna Prasad Lal Singha Deo v. Baraboni Coal Concern Ltd3, when had occasion to examine the contention based oil the words 'at the beginning of the tenancy' 14 CRP NO.200 OF 2021

in Section 1 16 of the Evidence Act, pronounced that they do not give a round for a person already in possession of land becoming tenant of another, to contend that there is no estoppel against his denying his subsequent lessor's title. Ever since, the accepted position is that Section 116 of the Evidence Act applies and estops even a person already in possession as tenant under one landlord from denying the title of his subsequent landlord when once he acknowledges him as his landlord by attornment or conduct. Therefore, a tenant of immovable property under landlord who becomes a tenant under another landlord by accepting him to be the owner who had derived title from the former landlord, cannot be permitted to deny the latter's title, even when he is sought to be evicted by the latter on a permitted ground."

6.16. On the above grounds, he submits that the

Civil Revision Petition is required to be

dismissed.

7. At this stage, Sri.B.V.Shankarnarayana Rao, learned

counsel for the Petitioner, submits that if an

adequate time period is granted to the Petitioner, the

Petitioner would vacate the premises. He submits

that the Petitioner has been in possession for more 15 CRP NO.200 OF 2021

than 40 years, and therefore, he seeks three years

time to vacate the premises.

8. Sri.C.V.Srinivass, learned counsel for the

Respondents, would submit that:

8.1. The Petitioner has acted in a malafide manner,

and that the Petitioner has even questioned

the ownership of the Respondents.

8.2. The Petitioner has continued to delay the

proceedings on one ground or the other. The

delay being occasioned by the Petitioner only

to gain the benefit of retention of the

premises, the relationship between the

Petitioner and Respondents have become very

strained, there is no trust between the parties.

Respondents No.1 and 2 owners do not wish to

grant any further extension of time, and as

such, on instructions, he submits that this

Court may proceed to pass necessary orders.

                                  16         CRP NO.200 OF 2021




9.    Heard     Sri.Shankaranarayana       Rao.B.V,     learned

counsel for the Petitioner and Sri.C.V.Srinivasa,

learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2.

Perused papers.

10. A short question that arises for consideration of this

Court is, whether the Petitioner has made out any

case for interference with the reasoned order passed

by a trial Court in S.C.No.584/2019 dated

20.07.2021?

11. A perusal of the records indicates that the Petitioner

had sought for adjournment after adjournment of the

proceedings including for the amicable resolution of

the matter, thereby indicating that the Petitioner

himself had recognized the respondents as owners of

the property and was seeking to negotiate that they

would arrive at an amicable resolution of the matter,

thereby indicating that the Petitioner himself had

recognized the respondents as the owners of the 17 CRP NO.200 OF 2021

property and was seeking to negotiate that they

would arrive at an amicable resolution.

12. It is in the above background, the contention of the

Petitioner cannot now be accepted that respondents

No.1 and 2 are not the owners of the property and or

that there is no jural relationship between the

petitioner and respondents No.1 and 2. The letter of

attornment which was objected to be marked and

subsequently which came to be marked as Ex.P50

would also establish such an attornment, and now

the tenant cannot contend that owner is not the

owner and that there is no jural relationship. This

kind of contention is completely malafide and so

taken up only for the purpose of delaying the matter

and for no further reason.

13. The tenant who took dishonest stand even denying

the ownership of the landlord is not entitled to any

equitable consideration. The proceedings have been

protracted by the Petitioner for a quite long time by 18 CRP NO.200 OF 2021

taking false contentions. In the other connected

matter CRP No.201/2021, these aspects have been

dealt with.

14. In view of the same, I find no reason to interfere

with the well-reasoned order passed by the trial

Court, the above Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.

However, time period of one month granted by the

trial Court to vacate the premises is extended by

another period of one month from today, the order

having been pronounced in the presence of the

counsel for Petitioner, the period of 30 days would

commence from today.

15. The Petitioner is directed to hand over the vacant

possession of the subject premises by 7.11.2021...

16. As directed by the trial Court, an inquiry into mesne

profits shall be held in accordance with law.

17. There being completely malafide stand taken and

false submissions having been made on facts, costs 19 CRP NO.200 OF 2021

of Rs. 10,000/- is imposed on the Petitioner to be

paid to the Respondents within 15 days from today,

i.e., on or before 21.10.2021.

18. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

ln