Karnataka High Court
Sri. Venkatesh T vs Smt. Kamala Narayan on 9 May, 2024
Author: N S Sanjay Gowda
Bench: N S Sanjay Gowda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:17147
CRP No. 187 of 2024
C/W CRP No. 365 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF MAY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 187 OF 2024
C/W
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.365 OF 2023
IN C.R.P.No.187/2024:
BETWEEN:
1. SRI.VENKATESH.T.
S/O LAT THIMMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS,
'VARIETY FOOTWEAR'
NEW #45, OLD NUMBER 1606
MKK ROAD, OPPOSITE DEVAIAH PARK,
BENGALURU-560 021.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SRIDHARA., ADVOCATE)
Digitally AND:
signed by
KIRAN
KUMAR R
Location:
1. SMT.KAMALA NARAYAN,
HIGH W/O LATE T.C.NARAYAN @ NARAYANA,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA AGED ABOUT 88 YEARS,
R/AT #1000, 5TH CROSS, 1ST MAIN,
IDEAL HOMES TOWNSHIP,
R.R.NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 098.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. HEMANTH.S., ADVOCATE)
THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 18 OF KARNATAKA
SMALL CAUSE COURTS ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED
04.01.2024 PASSED IN SC.No.575/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE I
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:17147
CRP No. 187 of 2024
C/W CRP No. 365 of 2023
ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, PARTLY DECREEING THE
SUIT FOR EJECTMENT AND DAMAGERS.
IN C.R.P.No.365/2023:
BETWEEN:
1. SRI.B.H.SRIDHAR,
S/O B.P.HARI RAO,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
QUEENS STUDIO,
NEW #45, OLD NUMBER 1606
MKK ROAD, OPPOSITE DEVAIAH PARK,
BANGALORE-560 021.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MOHAMED NASIRUDDIN., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT.KAMALA NARAYAN,
W/O LATE T.C.NARAYAN @ NARAYANA,
AGED ABOUT 88 YEARS,
R/AT #1000, 5TH CROSS, 1ST MAIN,
IDEAL HOMES TOWNSHIP,
R.R.NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 098.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. HEMANTH.S., ADVOCATE)
THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 18 OF KARNATAKA
SMALL CAUSES COURT ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
DECREE DATED 01.04.2023 PASSED IN SC.No.574/2019 ON
THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE,
BENGALURU PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR EJECTMENT.
THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 25.04.2024, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:17147
CRP No. 187 of 2024
C/W CRP No. 365 of 2023
ORDER
1. Smt. Kamala Narayan--the respondent herein in both
petitions instituted separate suits (SC No.574 of 2019 and
SC No.575 of 2019) for eviction against B.H.Sridhar--the
petitioner in CRP No.365 of 2023 and Sri.Venkatesh T.--
the petitioner in CRP No.187 of 2024.
2. She contended that she and her husband--
T.C.Narayan had purchased the suit properties on
04.12.1980 under a registered sale deed from
Chandrashekar and, thereafter, her husband--T.C.Narayan
passed away on 10.10.2008. It was stated that after the
death of her husband, all the municipal entries were
changed in her favour and she had become the owner of
said properties.
3. She also stated that T.Venkatesh was a tenant
paying a monthly rent of Rs.2,425/- and B.H.Sridhar was
paying a rent of Rs.2,550/-. She stated that she had
terminated the tenancy by issuance of quit notices to both
and had called upon both of them to hand over the
NC: 2024:KHC:17147
possession and, instead of handing over the possession,
they had issued a vague reply, as a result of which she
was constrained to initiate eviction proceedings.
4. B.H.Sridhar and T.Venkatesh contested the suits that
were filed against them.
5. B.H.Sridhar denied the jural relationship and stated
that Chandrashekaraiah had inducted his father--B.P.Hari
Rao as a tenant on monthly rent. He stated that
Chandrashekaraiah had passed away in the year 1962
leaving behind his sons and daughters as legal heirs and
since he had died intestate, Kamala Narayan was only
collecting the rents from various tenants on behalf of the
legal heirs of Chandrashekaraiah and, therefore, she was
not the owner of the shop premises to which Hari Rao was
inducted. It was stated that the B.P.Hari Rao--the original
tenant i.e., the father of B.H.Sridhar also passed away
leaving behind his sons as legal heirs, who had succeeded
to the leasehold rights and, therefore, the issuance of
notice under reply to B.H.Sridhar alone was improper.
NC: 2024:KHC:17147
6. B.H.Sridhar also stated that the name of Kamala
Narayan and her husband were wrongly mentioned in the
notice and that her children were staying in the United
States of America. A plea was also stated that
Chandrashekaraiah had promised the tenants that he
would sell the suit premises, but due to his sudden death,
the sale did not fructify. He thus sought dismissal of the
suit.
7. T.Venkatesh also contested the suit by filing a
separate written statement. He also contended that the
suit premises was owned by Chandrashekaraiah, who had
leased it in favour of Thimmaiah--his father, and after the
death of Thimmaiah, he was continuing the footwear
business in the leased premises. He also stated that as per
the instructions of Chandrashekaraiah, his father--
Thimmaiah had started paying monthly rent to Kamala
Narayan and she was acting as a rent collector on behalf
of Chandrashekaraiah.
NC: 2024:KHC:17147
8. He stated that at no point in time did Kamala
Narayan furnish any documents standing in her name with
regard to the title that she possessed, and, therefore, he
was not admitting that she was the owner of the suit
premises and was recognizing her only as a rent collector.
He submitted that in view of the above said facts, Kamala
Narayan had no authority to initiate proceedings against
him.
9. In both the suits, Kamala Narayan filed applications
for amending the plaints in respect of the property
numbers mentioned in the schedules wherein she sought
substitution of the "Old No.1606" with "Old No.1605".
These applications were allowed and additional written
statements were permitted to be filed by the defendants.
10. In the additional written statement, both
T.Venkatesh and B.H.Sridhar raised contentions that the
quit notices that had been issued to them to terminate the
tenancy was illegal since, admittedly, it was in respect of
"Old No.1606" and by virtue of the fact that the suit was in
NC: 2024:KHC:17147
fact filed in respect of the old No.1605. In other words,
both of them contended that the tenancy had not been
terminated as provided under the provisions of the
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 ("the Act") and the suit
was thus liable to be dismissed.
11. The Trial Court on consideration of the evidence that
is adduced before it had come to the conclusion that
Kamala Narayan had purchased the suit properties along
with her husband and after his death, she succeeded to
the properties. The change of municipal records also
indicates that she was the owner of the properties.
12. The Trial Court also took note of the fact that both
T.Venkatesh and B.H.Sridhar had admitted that they were
paying rents to Kamala Narayan. The Trial Court also took
note of the fact that no document was produced to
indicate that Chandrashekaraiah had entered into any
written lease agreement with them and since they
themselves admitted that they were paying rents to
Kamala Narayan, it was clear that the tenancy was in fact
NC: 2024:KHC:17147
admitted and also stood established by the fact that
Kamala Narayan had purchased the suit properties along
with her husband through a registered sale deed. In this
regard, the judgment of the Supreme Court cited by the
counsel for the petitioner in Giridharasa Narayanasa
Kategar1 is of no assistance, since the matter adjudicated
therein was clearly on the basis of an existing registered
lease deed, which is absent in the present case.
13. As for the amendment to the plaints regarding "Old
No.1605" and "Old No.1606" as well as the contention
taken that there is no valid termination, the Trial Court
has come to the conclusion that though the notices
indicated property as "Old No.1606", the notices had been
issued to T.Venkatesh and B.H.Sridhar--who admittedly
were tenants and, hence, there was no need for issuance
of fresh quit notices and the ones that had already been
issued were sufficient to determine the tenancy.
Giridharasa Narayanasa Kategar v. Jagadguru Gangadhar Dharma,
Pracharak Mandali, AIR 2021 Kar 187.
NC: 2024:KHC:17147
14. The Trial Court accordingly came to the conclusion
that the jural relationship had been proved and the
tenancy had been terminated, and as a consequence, both
B.H.Sridhar and T.Venkatesh were liable to hand over the
possession of the suit properties. It accordingly passed
decrees and also ordered for a separate enquiry to be
conducted in respect of the claim for damages.
15. As against these separate judgments, B.H.Sridhar
and T.Venkatesh are in revision before this Court by filing
the present revisions petitions separately.
16. The learned counsel representing B.H.Sridhar and
T.Venkatesh strenuously contended that the entire
proceedings stood vitiated by virtue of the fact that no quit
notice had been issued in respect of the actual property
i.e., Old No.1605 and issuance of a quit notice in respect
of Old No.1606 would be invalid. They therefore contended
that the tenancy had not stood terminated and, as a
consequence, the initiation of the eviction proceedings was
illegal.
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17147
17. It was also sought to be contended that B.H.Sridhar
and T.Venkatesh had contended recognising Kamala
Narayan as rent collector and not as the owner of the suit
properties, and that the Small Cause Court did not have
the jurisdiction to record a finding regarding the title of
Kamala Narayan.
18. At the outset, it has to be stated here that the
requirement of issuance of a notice under Section 106 of
the Act is to essentially notify a tenant that the landlord
does not wish to continue the tenancy any longer and that
he was required to hand over the vacant possession, and
the tenant was being granted fifteen days as provided
under Section 106 of the Act to hand over the possession.
19. The requirement of the law is only to notify a tenant
that the tenancy was being terminated and the time as
provided under Section 106 of the Act was being granted
to hand over possession. The moment a tenant is notified
by the landlord about the landlord's inclination to
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17147
discontinue the tenancy, the requirement of the law is
complete in all respects.
20. The argument that the wrong property number i.e.,
Old No.1606 was mentioned in the notice which was
corrected only after filing of the suits had rendered the
quit notices invalid, would not be an argument with any
substance.
21. Firstly, Section 106 of the Act does not require that
the intimation to the tenant about the termination of the
tenancy should contain a description of the property in
respect of which the notice was issued. In a case in which
the landlord is required to notify the tenant, the question
of describing the property would not be necessarily
essential because, both the landlord and the tenant are
aware of the property which was the subject matter of the
lease. Therefore, even if a property number was
improperly described, that, by itself, would not vitiate the
notice that had been issued under Section 106 of the Act.
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17147
22. It has to be also stated here that there is no
requirement under Section 106 of the Act to describe the
property that was the subject matter of the lease.
23. There is yet another factor which is to be taken note
of. The quit notice that had been issued indicated both
numbers--the new number as well as the old number.
Both B.H.Sridhar and T.Venkatesh did not deny that the
new number that was mentioned in the quit notices as
No.45, was incorrect. They also did not put forth the plea
that the quit notices were invalid because the old number
was wrongly shown as "Old No.1606".
24. An argument was, however, advanced by the learned
counsel for B.H.Sridhar that in the reply notice, it had
been stated that the boundaries and measurements
mentioned in the schedule are not accurate and, therefore,
a contention had been taken up regarding the schedule.
25. This argument cannot be accepted since, even
according to the claim in the reply, the only grievance was
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17147
regarding boundaries and measurements, and B.H.Sridhar
did not really put forth the plea that the quit notice was in
respect of the premises to which his father had been
inducted.
26. It may be pertinent to state here that even in the
reply submitted by T.Venkatesh, he only stated that the
measurements of the leased premises as shown in the
schedule were not correct. He thus did not raise any claim
regarding the mentioning of the wrong number of the
property. A reading of the reply would also indicate that
the reply was given on the premise that he was a tenant
and was in occupation of the premises leased to his father.
This would therefore indicate that no contention as such
was raised by T.Venkatesh regarding the termination
notice was invalid because of wrong property number
being mentioned.
27. It has to be stated here that both B.H.Sridhar and
T.Venkatesh were aware of the fact that they were tenants
and that the person who had issued the notice was,
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17147
according to them, the rent collector and was calling upon
them to hand over the possession. Since both of them
were aware that a demand was being made by the rent
collector calling upon them to hand over the possession, it
was obvious that they were aware that the tenancy was
being terminated and that they were liable to hand over
the possession.
28. The fact that the Trial Court has recorded that
Kamala Narayan had purchased the properties jointly
along with her husband and the further fact that both
B.H.Sridhar and T.Venkatesh admitted that they were
paying rents to Kamala Narayan would therefore clearly
establish that she was only the owner and was entitled to
seek ejectment.
29. In my view, the Trial Court was justified in coming to
the conclusion that the tenancies in favour of B.H.Sridhar
and T.Venkatesh have been rightly determined and both of
them were liable to be evicted.
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17147
30. I see no infirmity in the judgment and decrees
passed by the Trial Court and, consequently, both civil
revision petitions are dismissed.
31. However, it may be necessary to grant some
reasonable time to both T.Venkatesh and B.H.Sridhar to
vacate the suit premises under the facts and
circumstances of the present case. In my view, it would be
appropriate to grant them three months' time from today
to quit and deliver the vacant possession to Kamala
Narayan, subject to them undertaking that they would quit
and deliver the vacant possession of the suit premises and
would also continue to pay the rents regularly, even for
said period of three months.
32. They should also undertake that they shall not induct
any third parties or create any encumbrances in respect of
the suit premises which they are in possession of.
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17147
33. The undertakings as indicated above shall be filed by
them within a period of two weeks from the date of this
order.
Sd/-
JUDGE
RK/
CT: SN
