Karnataka High Court
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited vs Sri Muyeed Pasha on 8 December, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:44681
CRP No. 396 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 396 OF 2021 (SC)
BETWEEN:
1. BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED,
HEAD OFFICE, RETAIL TERRITORY,
NO. 17, DUPARC TRINITY,
7TH FLOOR, M.G. ROAD,
BANGALORE - 01,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER.
2. BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED,
REGIONAL OFFICE, RETAIL TERRITORY,
NO. 1, RANGANATH GARDERS,
NEAR PF QUARTERS, 11TH MAIN ROAD,
ANNA NAGAR CHENNAI - 600 040,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.
Digitally
signed by 3. BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED,
SUMA
Location: REGIONAL OFFICE AT BHARATH BHAVAN - II,
HIGH 4 AND 5, CUURIMBHOY BALLARD ESTATE,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA MUMBAI - 400 001,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN
AND MANAGING DIRECTOR.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. DHYAN CHINAPPA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. KUMAR N.J, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:44681
CRP No. 396 of 2021
AND:
SRI MUYEED PASHA,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
S/O ABDUL SHAKOOR,
R/AT NO. 294, THIMMAIAH ROAD,
BENGALURU - 51.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. BASAVARAJU BELAVANGALA, ADVOCATE AND
SRI. OMRAN KHAN, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1)
THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 18 OF THE SMALL
CAUSES COURT ACT 1964 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
DECREE DATED 18.09.2021 PASSED IN SC No. 1554/2018 ON
THE FILE OF THE VI ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND
XXXI ACMM, BENGALURU, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR
EJECTMENT, DAMAGES AND MESNE PROFIT.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioners have assailed the correctness of the
judgment dated 18.09.2021 passed by the VI Additional Small
Causes, Bengaluru (SCCH-2) in S.C.No.1554/2018, by which
petitioners were directed to quit and deliver vacant possession
of the petition schedule premises by or before 31.12.2021.
2. The respondent claimed that he was the owner of the
suit property and that the petitioners were tenants under him
on a monthly rent of Rs.600/- under a lease agreement dated
NC: 2023:KHC:44681
30.05.1989. The period of lease was from 01.05.1987 to
31.08.2018. The lease was executed by the grandmother of
the respondent, who later executed a gift deed dated
23.05.2005 and attorned the tenancy of the petitioners.
Consequently, after expiry of period of lease, the respondent
issued three months notice dated 28.05.2018 terminating the
tenancy which was replied by the petitioner on 19.06.2018
offering to renew the lease at higher rent. The respondent
initiated eviction of the petitioners in S.C.No.1554/2018 on the
ground that the petitioners even after being notified about the
termination of the tenancy had failed to quit and deliver vacant
possession of the suit property. The petitioners contested the
proceedings and claimed that the statutory notice under
Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 was not
served upon it. It claimed that it was in lawful possession of
the property and was paying rents regularly. It also admitted
that it was inducted into the premises by the grandmother of
the respondent. It also admitted the period mentioned in the
lease agreement. It also admitted that it had recognized the
respondent as the owner of the property and that it had
attorned the tenancy and paid the monthly rents regularly till
NC: 2023:KHC:44681
31.08.2018. The petitioners offered to renew the lease and
contended that the respondent had also expressed his
willingness to renew the lease but the petitioners could not
proceed with the matter in view of an interim order granted in
O.S.No.1514/2013.
3. Based on these contentions, respondent proceeded
with the trial. The respondent was examined as PW-1 and
marked Exs.P.1 to P.16. The petitioners examined one of its
Officers as DW-1 and marked a letter of authorization as
Ex.D.1. The trial Court found that the respondent proved the
relationship of landlord and tenant and also that respondent
had terminated the tenancy in accordance with law. Therefore,
it held that the petitioners have no right to continue in the
premises and therefore, decreed the suit filed by the
respondent and directed the petitioners to quit and deliver
vacant possession. Being aggrieved by the same, this petition
is filed.
4. Learned senior counsel representing the petitioners
submitted that the notice issued by the respondent is not in
NC: 2023:KHC:44681
accordance with law and that there was a civil suit filed for
declaration of title and therefore, ownership of the respondent
was doubtful. However, learned counsel for the respondent
contended that the tenancy of the petitioners is admitted and
therefore, the petitioners cannot exploit the pendency of
O.S.No.1514/2013 and contest the petition for eviction. He
contended that once the period prescribed under lease
agreement had expired, by virtue of Section 111 (g) of the
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 petitioners were not entitled to
continue. Nonetheless, he contends that since a notice of
termination of tenancy was issued, the petitioners could not
continue to occupy the premises.
5. I have considered the submissions made by the
learned senior counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel
for the respondent.
6. There is no dispute that the petitioners were tenants
under the grandmother of the respondent. There is no dispute
that she had bequeathed the suit property to the respondent
and the petitioners had attorned the tenancy in favour of the
NC: 2023:KHC:44681
respondent. Likewise, there is no dispute that the term of
lease had expired and as on the date of the suit, the petitioners
were tenants at sufferance. Similarly, there is no dispute
regarding the issuance of notice of termination of the tenancy
to the petitioners. Therefore, the trial Court did not have any
other alternative than to decree the suit of the respondent.
Therefore, the contention of the learned senior counsel for the
petitioners that there was a dispute regarding title of the
respondent is of no consequence. Though the learned senior
counsel submitted that there was some illegality in the issuance
of the notice of termination, yet a perusal of the same does not
disclose any illegality. Therefore, there is no error committed
by the trial Court in directing the ejectment of the petitioners
from the petition premises. Nonetheless, since the petitioners
are operating a petroleum outlet in the petition premises, this
Court considers it appropriate to grant a period of one year
from today to quit and deliver vacant possession of the petition
premises subject to the petitioners paying up all the arrears of
rent at the rate of Rs.600/- per month from the date of suit till
today and at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month from today till
vacating the petition premises and also pay the outstanding
NC: 2023:KHC:44681
property tax in respect of the suit property, as agreed under
the lease deed dated 30.05.1989, within a period of three
months from today. Accordingly, the petition is disposed off.
Sd/-
JUDGE
MH/-
CT: BHK
