Manoj Kumar vs S.M. Ramchandra Murthy
2023 Latest Caselaw 2914 Kant

                                                -1-
                                                          CRP No. 300 of 2023




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                             DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023

                                            BEFORE

                             THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

                         CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 300 OF 2023 (SC)

                   BETWEEN:

                   1.    MANOJ KUMAR,
                         S/O N. SOHANLAL,
                         AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
                         OFFICE AT SHOP NO.5
                         PREMISES NO.168/2,
                         M.M.ROAD, COX TOWN,
                         BENGALURU - 560 005
                                                               ...PETITIONER

                    (BY SRI. M.D.RAGHUNATH, ADVOCATE FOR M/s.LEGAL AXIS)

                   AND:

                   1.    S.M.RAMCHANDRA MURTHY,
                         S/O LATE MARIYANNA @ MARIYAPPA
Digitally signed
by SHARANYA T            AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
Location: HIGH           R/AT NO.723, 7TH MAIN
COURT OF                 MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT,
KARNATAKA
                         BENGLAURU -560 086
                                                             ...RESPONDENT

                            (BY SRI. KESHAVA K.V., ADVOCATE FOR C/R)

                        THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 18 OF THE
                   KARNATAKA SMALL CAUSES COURTS ACT, AGAINST THE
                   ORDER DATED 10.02.2023 PASSED ON I.A.No.II IN SC
                   NO.659/2021 FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 10 R/W SEC.151
                   OF CPC THEREBY REJECTING I.A.No.II PASSED ON THE FILE OF
                   THE II ADDITIONAL JUDGE, BENGALURU.
                                -2-
                                            CRP No. 300 of 2023




     THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                             ORDER

This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned

counsel appearing for the respective parties.

2. This CRP is filed under Section 18 of the Karnataka

Small Causes Courts Act, 1964, against the order of rejection

dated 10.02.2023 passed on I.A.No.II filed under Order VII

Rule 10 read with Section 151 of CPC in S.C.No.659/2021 on

the file of the II Additional SCJ and ACMM, Bengaluru (SCH-

13).

3. The main contention of the petitioner/defendant

before the Trial Court by filing an application under Order VII

Rule 10 of CPC is that the plaintiff has filed a suit suppressing

the material facts and the plaintiff has no locus standi to file

this suit and this Court suffers from lack of jurisdiction to

adjudicate this matter. This application is resisted by filing

statement of objections by the plaintiff contending that only to

protract the proceedings as much as possible and thereby to

harass the plaintiff, such an application is filed. It is contended

that even after sufficient opportunity given, defendant has

CRP No. 300 of 2023

failed to cross-examine P.W.1 and even the Court had imposed

cost of Rs.2,000/-. Instead of paying the cost and cross-

examining the P.W.1, defendant has filed this application

without any substance. By filing this application and keeping

the application prolonged defendant is enjoying the premises

without paying any rent. If the application is allowed, it will

cause hardship to the plaintiff.

4. Having taken note of the contention raised in the

application and also the objection, the Trial Court framed the

point for consideration that whether this Court has no

jurisdiction to try this suit. After considering the material on

record, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that this Revision

Petitioner/defendant was a tenant under one Smt. Lalitha. The

said Smt. Lalitha sold the property in favour of Sri. Mariyanna

@ Mariyappa and the defendant was paying rent to him

subsequently. The defendant is carrying on business of selling

medicine in the name and style of M/s. Manoj Medicals and had

been promptly paying rent of Rs.700/- per month and as such

there are no arrears pending either to Smt. Lalitha or to Shri

Mariyanna @ Mariyappa. The defendant took the contention

that the plaintiff is very much stranger to the property and he

CRP No. 300 of 2023

does not agree that he is the son of Late Mariyanna and he has

acquired the suit schedule property.

5. The Trial Court having considered the written

statement as well as the grounds urged in the application

taking into note of the very contention that the relationship

between the parties, in paragraph No.9 discussed that the

defendant is questioning the title only on the ground that he

does not know that the plaintiff is the son of Mariyappa @

Mariyanna. The learned counsel for the defendant had relied

upon the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in the case of

Sambhunath Mitra and others v. Khaitan Consultant Ltd.

and others reported in AIR 2005 Calcutta 281, the same is

also taken note of by the Trial Court. In paragraph Nos.11, 12

and 13 discussed in detail that once the defendant admits that

he was inducted as a tenant in the suit premises, he cannot

now challenge the ownership of plaintiff/landlord in terms of

Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act and no such stand has

been taken by the defendant in his written statement.

Absolutely there are no special circumstances or grounds which

create the doubt on the title of the plaintiff and also the Trial

Court taken note of the premises which comes within the

CRP No. 300 of 2023

jurisdiction of the Court in which ejection suit was filed. Hence,

came to the conclusion that the very contention that the Court

has no jurisdiction when the tenant has challenged the title of

the plaintiff cannot be accepted and the tenant cannot question

the title of the plaintiff and his locus standi, as contended.

Hence, rejected the application on cost of Rs.2,000/- and the

case was posted for cross-examination of P.W.1.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

would vehemently contend that the Trial Court has committed

an error in dismissing the application with cost and failed to

take note of the grounds urged in the application and in the

very application categorically contended that the plaintiff has

no locus standi to file a suit as well as suffers from lack of

jurisdiction and the same has not been considered by the Trial

Court and the Trial Court has committed an error. The learned

counsel also brought to the notice of this Court that the

judgment reported in AIR 2005 Calcutta 281, in paragraph

No.50, wherein, discussed with regard to disputing the title of

the landlord and also the learned counsel would vehemently

contend that, a transferee from such a landlord also can claim

the benefit, but that will be limited to the question of the title of

CRP No. 300 of 2023

the original landlord at the time when the tenant was let in. So

far claim of having derived a good title from the original

landlord is concerned, the same does not come under the

protection of the doctrine of estoppel, and is vulnerable to a

challenge. The tenant is entitled to show that the plaintiff has

not as a matter of fact secured a transfer from the original

landlord or that the alleged transfer is ineffective for some

other valid reason, which renders the transfer to be non-

existent in the eye of law. Hence, the learned counsel referring

to this judgment would contend that the tenant can dispute the

ownership. The learned counsel also would vehemently

contend that the defendant disputed with regard to the

ownership and also the Small Causes Court cannot decide the

issue with regard to execution of the Will. These are the facts

had not been considered by the Trial Court. Hence, it requires

interference.

7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the

plaintiff/respondent would vehemently contend that the very

same judgment was relied upon before the Trial Court

and the Trial Court also taken note of the same. The learned

counsel also brought to the notice of this Court that the order

CRP No. 300 of 2023

dated 10.02.2023 was challenged before the very same Court

by filing a review application under Section 114 of CPC and the

same also came to be rejected on cost of Rs.5,000/-. In spite

of imposing cost of Rs.2,000/- in the earlier application while

dismissing the I.A.No.II, again the review application was filed.

Again, the defendant comes before this Court urging the very

same grounds. The learned counsel also would vehemently

contend that in the review application, the Trial Court had

taken note of the contentions urged and relied upon the

judgment of the Delhi High Court, in paragraph No.10 of its

order on I.A.No.III, rightly rejected the application. In spite of

it, the matter was dragged without cross-examining the witness

in spite of the case was posted for cross-examination. Instead

of cross-examining the witness, the present application is filed

under Order VII Rule 10 of CPC. Hence, it is nothing but an

abuse of process.

8. Having heard the respective counsel and also taking

into note of the material on record, particularly, an application

filed under Order VII Rule 10 of CPC., the only ground urged in

the application is that the plaintiff has suppressed the material

facts and no specific averments are made that the defendant

CRP No. 300 of 2023

has continued as tenant and the plaintiff has no locus standi to

file the suit and suffers from jurisdiction. The Revision

Petitioner not disputes the fact that he was a tenant under one

Smt. Lalitha. The said Smt. Lalitha sold the property in favour

of Sri Mariyanna @ Mariyappa and thereafter also he continued

as a tenant with the said Mariyanna and the claim of the

plaintiff that he is the son of the said Mariyanna. The very

contention of the learned counsel is that there is no any

attornment of tenancy and the said contention cannot be

accepted since the same by operation of law. If a tenant

continued as a tenant of the father, no such requirement of

attornment is necessary and the main contention urged in the

application is that no jurisdiction and the Trial Court while

considering the application taking into note of the premises

which is situated within the jurisdiction of the Court came to

the conclusion that there is a jurisdiction and also contention

that there is no locus standi. The learned counsel contends that

not admitting that he is the son and the said fact has to be

considered only during the course of the trial that whether he is

a son or not whether he is continued as a tenant. When he was

a tenant under the father, the very contention urged before the

CRP No. 300 of 2023

Trial Court that too an application filed when the matter was

set down for cross-examination of P.W.1. the Trial Court also

while dismissing the application taken note of the said fact into

consideration and the plaintiff also in the objection statement

categorically stated that when the case was posted for cross-

examination of P.W.1 on cost of Rs.2,000/- instead of cross-

examining the witness, an application is filed under Order VII

Rule 10 of CPC. The very conduct has to be taken note of. The

application filed under Order VII Rule 10 of CPC was dismissed

with cost of Rs.2,000/- Again an application was filed for review

the order and the review application also dismissed on cost of

Rs.5,000/-. Instead of cross-examining the P.W.1, all efforts

are made before the Trial Court to drag the proceedings. The

Court has to take note of the conduct of the defendant that an

application was filed under Order VII Rule 10 of CPC, when the

case is set down for cross-examination of P.W.1, even on

payment of cost, the case is adjourned for cross-examination,

not cross-examined the witness, come up with an application-

I.A.No.II filed under Order VII Rule 10 of CPC. One more

application was filed under Section 114 of CPC i.e., numbered

as I.A.No.III and it clearly shows that it is nothing but an abuse

- 10 -

CRP No. 300 of 2023

of process. Instead of cross-examining the witness filed

unnecessary applications viz., I.A.No.II and III. Even after

rejection of the review application, the case is set down for

cross-examination of P.W.1 by fixing the date on 05.04.2023

and the revision petitioner not cross-examined the witness

even an opportunity was given after dismissal of the review

application. Now, the case is set down for arguments. This

conduct clearly shows that the defendant is not allowing the

Trial Court to proceed with the matter. Hence, I do not find any

merit in the application and instead of cross-examination,

several applications are filed and the same are dismissed with

costs, therefore, filed this Revision Petition. Hence, I do not find

any merit in the Petition and having taken note of the conduct

of the petitioner, this Court has to impose the cost.

9. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

following:

ORDER

The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed on cost

of Rs.10,000/- payable within one month from

- 11 -

CRP No. 300 of 2023

today. If the cost is not paid, strike out the defense

and proceed with the matter.

In view of dismissal of the revision petition,

I.A.No.1/2023 for stay does not survive for consideration, the

same stands disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE

CP