Karnataka High Court
Mr H T Arvind Rao vs Mr P Devadas Shetty on 27 February, 2024
Author: N S Sanjay Gowda
Bench: N S Sanjay Gowda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:7977
CRP No. 134 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 134 OF 2024 (EX)
BETWEEN:
1. MR H T ARVIND RAO
S/O H T JAYARAMA RAO
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
2. MRS. H.T.SRIMATHI RAO,
W/O H.T.JAYARAMA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS,
BOTH ARE R/AT DOOR NO. 7-4-729/1
OPP. HOTEL NAVANEETH,
M.G.ROAD, KODIALBAIL,
MANGALURU - 575 003 (DK)
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. M SUDHAKAR PAI., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally
signed by
KIRAN
KUMAR R MR P DEVADAS SHETTY
Location: SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS
HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 1. MRS. VISHALA D SHETTY
W/O LATE P DEVADAS SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
R/AT SOUMYA MALLIKA EXTENSION,
KADRI KAMBALA ROAD,
BEJAI, MANGALURU - 575 004 (DK).
2. DR. SOWMYA SHETTY
D/O LATE P. DEVADAS SHETTY
W/O DR. VIJAY SHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:7977
CRP No. 134 of 2024
R/AT C-63, 10TH FLOOR,
EECENESS BUILDING,
AUTOPHILL, WADALA EAST,
MUMBAI - 400037.
3. MRS. SMITHA HEGDE,
D/O LATE P. DEVADAS SHETTY
W/O MR. CHANDAN HEGDE,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
R/AT FLAT NO.403, SSK ENCLAVE,
12TH CROSS, 22ND MAIN,
RAGHAVENDRA LAYOUT,
NEAR RAVI GAS AGENCY,
PADMANABHA NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560070.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ANANDARAMA.K., ADVOCATE)
THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC.,
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16.02.2024 IN EX. NO.2/2018 ON
THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MANGALURU D.K.,
REJECTING THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE JUDGMENT
DEBTORS AND OTHER CONDITIONS AS STATED THEREIN.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. The facts are not in dispute.
2. The respondent - Mr. P.Devadas Shetty instituted a
suit, seeking for possession, in O.S. No.613/2007. The
suit was decreed and an appeal filed against R.A.
No.171/2017 was also dismissed.
NC: 2024:KHC:7977
3. A second appeal preferred against the said decree in
R.S.A. No.506/2022 also met the same fate of dismissal
and ultimately the Hon'ble Supreme Court also confirmed
the decree of dismissal in S.L.P. No.18347/2023.
4. The legal representatives of Mr. P.Devadas Shetty
thereafter instituted Execution Proceedings to recover
possession and in the said Execution Petition the judgment
debtor, who had suffered a decree in O.S. No.613/2007
raised objections contending that the suit property was
coming within the purview of the Karnataka Rent Act,
1999 and therefore, the decree passed by the Trial Court
was one without jurisdiction. It is contended that the
question of jurisdiction can be raised at any stage and also
in collateral proceedings and since the Trial Court lacked
the inherent jurisdiction to pass a decree in
O.S.No.613/2007 by virtue of the suit premises coming
under the purview of the Karnataka Rent Act, the decree
was a nullity.
NC: 2024:KHC:7977
5. The Trial Court in the impugned order has stated as
follows -
"20. Perused the materials available on
record. On perusal of the judgment passed in
O.S.No.613/2007 it is seen that the plaintiff issued a
quit notice, for which the defendants replied to the
same by denying the relationship of landlord and
tenant between the plaintiff and the defendants and
further claiming the title over the suit schedule
property. Such being the case, when the relationship
of landlord and tenant is disputed, the civil court is the
forum to adjudicate the issue. Hence the plaintiff
rightly approached the civil court. Further the counsel
for the judgment debtor vehemently argued that
though they have disputed the relationship as it is
held that there is a landlord and tenant relationship
between the plaintiffs and the defendants, the
defendants are having protection/grounds which can
be urged before the rent court. In this regard on
perusal of the written statement of the defendants
they have not taken up any of the defense in this
regard. On the other hand, they have not only denied
the relationship, but also denied the title of the
plaintiff and claimed the title over the suit schedule
property. Therefore, the arguments of the judgment
debtors that they are deprived of the
protection/grounds available to them under the
Karnataka Rent Act cannot be accepted, as in the
written statement they have not admitted that they
NC: 2024:KHC:7977
are the tenants and the suit is filed on the ground
that, the defendants being the tenants without having
any rights fabricated a Will of Smt.Padmakshi and also
unauthorizedly executed the settlement deed dated
12.11.2003 by the defendant No.2 in favour of the
defendant No.1. The defendant No.1 got the RTC
mutated in his name and illegally surrendered the
portion of schedule property to the Mangaluru City
Corporation for formation of the roadway. As the
defendants being the tenants acting adverse to the
interest of the plaintiff, he filed the suit for eviction.
As in the reply notice dated 30.08.2007 itself, the
defendants denied the title of the plaintiff as well as
the relationship of the landlord and tenant and as they
claimed the title over the suit schedule property, it is
the civil court which is competent to adjudicate the
matter. Filing the petition before the rent court,
getting it referred to civil court and then again going
back to rent court for the final order as contended by
the counsel for the judgment debtors is nothing but a
futile exercise."
(emphasis supplied)
6. As could be seen from the above, the Trial Court has
found that the judgment debtor not only denied the
relationship of landlord and tenant in the suit, but had also
denied the title of Mr.P.Devadas Shetty and had in fact
claimed title over the suit property. If the defendant had
NC: 2024:KHC:7977
claimed title over the suit property, it is obvious that he
cannot thereafter contend that he was a tenant of the
property and the provisions of the Karnataka Rent Act
would apply.
7. If the petitioner had claimed that he was the owner
of the property and this claim was rejected throughout
right up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court, he cannot be
permitted to re-agitate entire claim afresh on the premise
that he was a tenant of the property and that the
provisions of the Karnataka Rent Act would apply.
8. I am, therefore, of the view that the order of the
Trial Court rejecting the objections filed by judgment
debtors - petitioners cannot be found fault with. Revision
Petition is, therefore, dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
hnm
