Karnataka High Court

Mr. Leeladhara vs Mr. Vevek Mohan Shenoy on 31 July, 2024

Author: V Srishananda

Bench: V Srishananda

                                            -1-
                                                         NC: 2024:KHC:30179
                                                        HRRP No. 29 of 2020



                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
                           DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2024
                                         BEFORE
                          THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
                          HOUSE RENT REV. PETITION NO. 29 OF 2020
                   BETWEEN:

                   MR. LEELADHARA
                   S/O.LATE. MUDDANNA,
                   AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
                   R/AT DOOR NO. 7-11-1101,
                   NEAR FORMER RAMAKRISHNA OIL MILLS,
                   SULTHAN BATTERY ROAD,
                   MANGALURU 575 006.

                   SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY HIS
                   LEGAL HEIRS

                   1(A) SMT. YASHODHA,
                        W/O LATE LEELADHARA,
                        AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
                        R/AT DOOR NO.7-11-1101,
                        NEAR FORMER RAMAKRISHNA OIL MILLS,
                        SULTHAN BATTERY ROAD,
Digitally signed        MANGALURU - 575 006.
by SHARADA
VANI B             1(B) SMT. BHAVYA,
Location: HIGH          W/O DEVADAS,
COURT OF                D/O LATE LEELADHARA,
KARNATAKA
                        AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
                        R/AT DOOR NO.1-25-2072
                        SRI SAINATH HOUSE, URWA,
                        NEAR JOY DRINKS LINE,
                        BOLOOR, MANGALORE,
                        D.K.- 575 006.

                   1(C) SMT. MANDAKINI,
                        W/O SATHEESHA KUMAR,
                        D/O LATE LEELADHARA,
                        AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
                            -2-
                                      NC: 2024:KHC:30179
                                    HRRP No. 29 of 2020



       R/AT #22-3-4 DEVI KRIPA,
       KREC ROAD, A D BANGERA COMPOUND,
       MADHYA PADAVU, MANDYA,
       D.K. - 575 030.

1(D) SMT. NISHITHA,
     W/O LOKESH,
     D/O LATE LEELADHARA,
     AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
     R/AT 1-116, BALAJI PAKKALADKA,
     CHURCH ROAD, BAJAL, MANGALORE,
     D.K.- 575 027.

1(E)   SMT. DEEKSHITHA,
       W/O SURESH POOJARY,
       D/O LATE LEELADHARA,
       AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
       R/AT 1-86, TILAKNAGAR,
       AMBLAMOGARU, D.K- 575 017.
                                            ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. ANANDARAMA K.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

MR. VEVEK MOHAN SHENOY
S/O. LATE. MOHAN SHENOY,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
R/AT SOHUM, ANEGUNDI ROAD,
BEJAI, MANGALURU 575 004.
                                            ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. VIJAYA KRISHNA BHAT M.,ADVOCATE)

     THIS HRRP FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF THE CPC., 1908
R/W. SEC.46 OF THE KARNATAKA RENT ACT.1999 AGAINST
THE ORDER DATED 30.11.2020 PASSED IN RRP NO.11/2019
ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, DAKSHINA KANNADA, MANGALURU DISMISSING THE
PETITION FILED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 24.09.2019
PASSED IN HRC NO.2/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL.CIVIL
JUDGE MANGALURU D.K. PARTLY ALLOWING PETITION FILED
UNDER SEC.27(2) (p) AND (r) AND 42 OF KARNATAKA RENT
ACT. 1999 FOR EVICTION.
                                   -3-
                                                NC: 2024:KHC:30179
                                              HRRP No. 29 of 2020



    THIS HRRP COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM:     HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

                           ORAL ORDER

Heard learned counsel Sri Anandarama.K. and Sri Vijaya

Krishna Bhat.M.

2. The revision petitioner as per the respondent is a tenant

in respect of building bearing No. 7-11-1101, 1102 & 1103 situated

at Boloor village in Mangaluru city. The respondent filed eviction

petition under the provisions of Sec.27(2)(p) & (r) and Sec.42 of the

Karnataka Rent Act, 1999. The said petition was opposed by

revision petitioner herein inter alia contending that he is the owner

of the premises by adverse possession and in fact he has

constructed the said building and therefore the eviction petition is

not maintainable.

3. The learned Judge in the trial court, after hearing the

parties dismissed the application filed u/s.43 of the Rent Act and

allowed the eviction petition.

4. Being aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner filed

a Rent Revision Petition before the District Court, Mangalore in

R.R.P.No.11/2019.

NC: 2024:KHC:30179

5. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing

the records heard the parties in detail and by order dated

30.11.2020 has dismissed the revision petition filed by the present

revision petitioner.

6. Thereafter, the petitioner is before this court. Sri

Anandarama, learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating

the grounds urged in the petition, contended that both the courts

have not properly appreciated the material evidence on record and

wrongly passed an order of eviction resulting in miscarriage of

justice and sought for present petition to be admitted for further

consideration.

7. Per contra Sri Vijaya Krishna Bhat learned counsel for

the respondent-landlord supports the impugned judgment.

8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on

perusal of the material on record, the lis dates back to the year

1975 whereunder, the revision petitioner herein filed an application

under Form No.7 before the Land Tribunal claiming to be the

tenant in respect of the land as well as the building in question after

the promulgation of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act.

NC: 2024:KHC:30179

9. The said proceedings ended in the dismissal of the

application filed by the revision petitioner under Form No.7 as not

maintainable taking note of the fact that the land in question was

not an agricultural land as admittedly it contained a building

thereon.

10. For the reasons best known to the revision petitioner,

he did not challenge the order of the Land Tribunal.

11. Thereafter, the respondent herein filed the eviction

petition in the year 2015. The eviction petition was contested as

aforesaid inter alia by filing an application u/s.43 of the Karnataka

Rent Act, 1999 questioning the very jural relationship of landlord

and tenant between the revision petitioner and the respondent

herein. The matter was contested and by order dated 24.09.2019,

the eviction petition came to be allowed, dismissing the application

filed u/s.43 of the Rent Act, whereby the eviction court recorded a

categorical finding that there existed a jural relationship between

the revision petitioner and the respondent and the presumption

available to the landlord u/s.27(2) of the Karnataka Rent Act was

not rebutted by placing necessary evidence on record by the

revision petitioner.

NC: 2024:KHC:30179

12. Being aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner filed a

Rent Revision Petition before the District Court, Mangalore. The

learned Judge after securing the records and considering the rival

contentions of the parties, categorically recorded a finding that

there existed a jural relationship between the revision petitioner

and the respondent of tenant and landlord and the material on

record was sufficient enough to uphold the said finding recorded by

the learned trial Judge and also following the dictum of this court in

the case of B.C.SATHYANARAYANA vs. B.N.JAGANTHA RAO,

2006(4) KCCR 2125, wherein this court has considered the scope

and ambit and the philosophy behind the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999

dismissed the revision petition filed by the tenant.

13. Thereafter the tenant is before this court in the second

revision.

14. Having heard the arguments, this court considered the

rival contentions of the parties having regard to the scope of the

second revision. The contentions urged on behalf of the revision

petitioner is basically that he is not a tenant at all and his

possession is protected by way of adverse possession.

NC: 2024:KHC:30179

15. Admittedly at an undisputed point of time the petitioner

claimed that he was a tenant before the Land Tribunal. It is to be

noticed that at that juncture the application filed in Form No.7 was

filed by the revision petitioner to take advantage of a beneficial

piece of legislation which has come into force. When the petitioner

has made an unequivocal submission at that point of time that

he was a tenant, from what date he started enjoying property

adversely to the interest of the owner that is the respondent in this

revision petition is absent in the pleadings.

16. It is to be noted that if some person claims the

possession over a property by way of adverse possession, the

rules of pleadings would mandate such a person to plead three

necessary ingredients, namely nec vi, nec clam, and nec precario,

meaning thereby on what date the person who claims adverse

possession came into the possession of the property, what was the

nature of his possession and whether the factum of possession

was known to the other party and how long his possession

continued and whether his possession was open and undisturbed.

17. On a careful perusal of the objection statement filed by

the revision petitioner before the eviction court, except making a

NC: 2024:KHC:30179

bald statement that he is in possession of the property and he has

perfected his title by adverse possession, all other parameters with

regard to the rules of pleading referred to supra are absent.

18. On record to prove adverse possession, it is also

pertinent to note that no proof is also forthcoming as the revision

petitioner was focused on the jural relationship rather than

establishing other aspects of the matter for which the burden was

definitely on the revision petitioner.

19. All these factors has been rightly appreciated by both

the courts in negating the stand taken by the revision petitioner and

consequently taking advantage of the presumption available to the

landlord under the statute, passed an order of eviction against the

revision petitioner.

20. In the considered opinion of this court, both the orders

passed by the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court and the

learned Judge of the trial court does not suffer from any legal

infirmity or patent factual defect inviting the interference of this

court that too in the second revision.

21. Accordingly, the following:

NC: 2024:KHC:30179

ORDER

(i) The Revision Petition is meritless and hereby

dismissed.

(ii) Taking note of the fact that some reasonable

breathing time is to be given for the revision

petitioner to vacate and handover the premises,

time is granted till 31.08.2024 to the revision

petitioner to handover the peaceful possession

of the premises to the respondent.