Karnataka High Court
Devaraju vs Raju on 5 March, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:9199
HRRP No. 3 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
HOUSE RENT REV. PETITION NO. 3 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
DEVARAJU
S/O LATE DYAVAIAH @ DYAVEGOWDA
SINCE DECEASED REP BY HIS LRS
D SWAROOP
S/O DEVARAJU
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
R/O 3RD CROSS SIDDAIAH
NAGARA EXTENSION
HASSAN-573201.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SUNIL AMBI.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally
signed by RAJU
SUVARNA T S/O MASIYAPPA
Location: AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
HIGH R/O 3RD CROSS, SIDDAIAH NAGARA EXTENSION
COURT OF
KARNATAKA HASSAN-573201.
...RESPONDENT
THIS HRRP IS FILED UNDER SEC. 115 OF CPC., AGAINST
THE ORDER DATED 24.05.2021 PASSED IN RR.NO.1/2019 ON
THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, HASSAN, DISMISSING THE REVISION PETITION AND
CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.09.2019 PASSED IN
HRC.NO. 02/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC., HASSAN ALLOWING THE PETITION FOR
EVICTION.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:9199
HRRP No. 3 of 2022
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the Court
below in Revision (Rent) No.1/2019 dated 24.05.2021
passed by the II Addl. District & Sessions Court at Hassan,
confirming the order passed in HRC.No.2/2013 dated
13.09.2019 passed by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC,
Hassan, the petitioner/tenant is before this court.
2. The petitioner is a tenant and the respondent is
the landlord. The respondent herein has filed
HRC.No.2/2013 under section 27(2) (a) (r) of the
Karnataka Rent Act, 1999. It is the case of the landlord
that he is the owner of the petition schedule property and
regularly paying the taxes to the concerned authorities.
He has let out the property to the respondent on
04.09.1995 on rental basis. Every year the rental
agreement is being renewed from time to time. From past
several years the rental agreement was not renewed but
jural relationship of landlord and tenant exists. The tenant
NC: 2024:KHC:9199
used to pay a sum of Rs.450/- per month as rent to the
landlord. It is the case of respondent-landlord that he was
an Attender in Corporation Bank and recently he retired
from service. He has no other income for his livelihood,
he requires the schedule premises for his own use and
occupation. When he has issued a legal notice,
terminating the tenancy with effect from 15.01.2013,
there was no response and hence he initiated the eviction
proceedings on the ground of bonafide requirement.
Thereafter the tenant appeared before the court and
denied the jural relationship between the landlord and
tenant. According to him, the respondent herein is not the
landlord and allegation that he was paying the rent
regularly is not correct. It was also denied that notice was
issued. According to the tenant, Ambedkar Charitable
Trust is the owner of the eight commercial shops and one
of the shops situated at Sl.No.4 is let out to him by the
said charitable trust. He has paid a sum of Rs.30,000/- as
advance and a sum of Rs.2,500/- monthly rent and he is
regularly paying the rent to the said trust. Initially in the
NC: 2024:KHC:9199
year 1995, the property was let out to him by the
applicant himself. After knowing that the applicant is not
the owner of petition scheduled property, the tenant has
not renewed the rent agreement but he entered into new
agreement with Ambedkar Charitable Trust. According to
the tenant, petition schedule property is nothing to do with
the applicant and he is not the owner of the property and
he is eking out his livelihood from the business in the said
shop and he cannot vacate the said shop. Landlord
himself is examined as PW-1 and marked Ex.P-1 to P-10.
On behalf of the tenant, RW-1, RW-2 and RW-3 were
examined and Ex.R-1 to R-12 are marked.
3. The court below has allowed HRC No.2/2013 by
order dated 13.09.2019, whereby the tenant is directed to
handover the vacant possession of the suit property within
two months from the date of the order and he is directed
to pay an amount of Rs.2,700/- towards unpaid rent and
he is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.500/- per month
NC: 2024:KHC:9199
with interest at 6% from the date of petition till handing
over the possession.
4. Aggrieved thereby the tenant has filed Revision
(Rent) No. 1/2019 under section 48(2) of the Karnataka
Rent Act, 1991. Revision reiterating the grounds that
were raised before the court below and it is the case of the
tenant there is no jural relationship of the landlord and
tenant. According to the tenant he came to know that the
applicant is not the owner and he entered into a
agreement with Ambedkar Charitable Trust. No material is
passed before the court to show that Ambedkar Charitable
Trust is the owner of the petition schedule property. The
court observed that except the self serving statement of
RW-2, there is nothing available before the court to show
that the trust has anything to do with the petition schedule
property in any manner. The court also observed that
Ex.P-1 to P-3 clearly establishes that the tenant entered
into an agreement with the landlord. Now it is not open to
him to deny the jural relationship in absence of providing
NC: 2024:KHC:9199
any specific proof. There is nothing available on record to
show that he has issued any notice after 1999 to his
landlord disputing his right over the petition schedule
property. Before entering into the agreement with the
Ambedkar Charitable Trust, the respondent has not issued
any notice or produced any documents to show that the
applicant is not the owner of the property. The court
below also observed that even after producing Ex.R-4 to
R-6, the tenant has not stated as to how he came to the
conclusion that Ambedkar Charitable Trust is the owner of
the property and there is nothing available before the
court to show the ownership of the trust. In the absence
of showing the owner details, Ex.P-1 to P-3 cannot be
brushed aside.
5. The court observed that further in the process of
cross-examination, the tenant admitted that he is not
aware whether the property is in the name of Ambedkar
Charitable Trust or not. The court has also observed that
credance cannot be given to Ex.R-3 in any manner.
NC: 2024:KHC:9199
Further, a tenant cannot take his own discretion to enter
into an agreement with somebody in the absence of
consent from his previous owner. The applicant landlord
has lawfully terminated the tenancy by issuing the notice
and occupation of the tenant is illegal and the court held
that the landlord is entitled for possession of the petition
schedule property as ordered by the trial court. The court
also observed that it is not necessary for the court to send
the matter to the civil court to decide who is owner of the
property and accordingly held that there is jural
relationship of landlord and tenant. Further the tenant
may have some problems and that does not necessarily
mean that he can squat over the property for indefinite
period. The tenant has not paid rent for past several
years and it is high time to order for eviction of tenant
and accordingly by confirming the order of the trial court
has dismissed the Revision. Aggrieved thereby the tenant
is before this court.
NC: 2024:KHC:9199
6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submits that both the courts below failed to appreciate the
case of the tenant and the orders that are passed by the
Court are contrary to law. Why the property is let out to
the tenant, nothing has been stated by the landlord.
Without knowing the purpose, such admission on the part
of landlord is not considered by the court below. The
notices were intentionally not served, as the landlord failed
to prove his case he is entitled for any of the reliefs from
the court. It is submitted by the learned counsel that after
the orders are passed, he has paid an amount of
Rs.20,000/- per month. The petitioner herein submits
that the landlord is not permitting him to do his business
though he is paying the rents and he is not permitted to
open the premises. It is submitted that petitioner is ready
to deposit the entire arrears amount which are pending
the revision is to be allowed and he should be permitted to
continue with the business.
NC: 2024:KHC:9199
7. Though this is an appeal of 2022, so far notices
are not ordered to the respondent/Landlord, this court for
consideration of interim application has gone through the
order passed by the courts bellows concurrently holding
that the petitioner-tenant has to be evicted from the
premises. Having gone through both the orders passed by
the court below this court is of the view that by looking at
the judgments court below, this court has asked the
learned counsel for the petitioner to advance the
arguments on the merits of the Revision and he has
advanced his arguments.
8. The whole dispute in this petition is the landlord
has let out the premises to the tenant in the year 1995
and there is no dispute about that fact. According to the
tenant in the year 1998, he came to know that Ambedkar
Charitable Trust is the owner of the property and
accordingly he has been paying the rents to them from
there in. In the year 2013, a notice was issued by the
landlord on 15.01.2013 that he is not receiving the rents.
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9199
Thereafter, he instituted HRC.No.2/2013. According to the
landlord, he requires the premises for the bonafide
requirement and there is willfull default on the part of
tenant in paying the rent. The tenant has denied the jural
relationships of Landlord and tenant. The evidence that is
placed on record and the evidence this is placed before the
Court shows that the petition schedule property belongs to
the landlord. No other positive evidence is placed by the
tenant that Ambedkar Charitable Trust is the owner of the
property and the tenant is paying the rents. No document
is filed and documents that are filed do not substantiate
their case that the applicant is not the owner of the
property. Both the courts below have extensively dealt
with the same and has come to the conclusion that the
applicant is the owner of the petition schedule property
and by issuing notice dated 15.01.2013, he has
terminated the tenancy. Admittedly when the tenant is
not paying the rents to the landlord, there is a willful
violation on the part of the tenant in paying the rents.
Considering all these, the courts below have rightly held
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9199
that the applicant-owner is entitled for the relief as sought
for and directed the respondent-tenant to handover the
vacant possession to the petition schedule property. The
tenant cannot defend his case saying he has been paying
the rent to somebody but not to the owner of the
property. It is not for the respondent himself to
unilaterally to decide that somebody is the owner of the
property. When for some years, he has paid rent to the
landlord and later when he started treating some one as
land lord and paying the rents there should be some basis
for that. Unfortunately, in this case, tenant has not taken
any steps, brought to the notice of the landlord and failed
to issue any notice in this regard to the Landlord.
9. Considering all these aspects, the court below has
rightly allowed the petition filed by the landlord. In that
view of the matter, this court finds no reasons to interfere
and accordingly the Revision Petition is dismissed with
costs by confirming the order passed by the courts below
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9199
in HRC.No.2/2013 and Revision (Rent) No.1/2019 is
confirmed.
SD/-
JUDGE
TS
