Important Point
A proceeding that was incompetent on the date the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 came into force would not revive merely because it remained pending before the Court.

Headnote:Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 – Section 2(3)(f) – Initiation of eviction proceedings against Respondent 1 tenant – Trial Court held that eviction petition filed against Respondent 1 was not maintainable under Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 as proceeding was instituted within period of 15 years since suit house was subjected to substantial renovation and additional construction as provided under Section 2(3) (f) of Act – In revision, High Court affirmed view taken by trial Court – Appeal thereagainst – What was cost of construction or value of single storey house that was originally let out to respondent No.1 and what was cost of construction of first floor and garage and whether or not suit house had undergone substantial renovation/additional construction within meaning of Section 2(3)(f) of Act were pure questions of fact – On the basis of evidences led before it, trial court found and held that cost incurred in additional construction/renovation was in excess of 75% of value of original single storey house – Finding of trial court was affirmed by High Court – Said finding being based on evidence brought before court did not warrant any interference by Court – Again, once it was established that suit house had undergone additional construction/substantial renovation within meaning of Section 2(3)(f) of Act question of maintainability of proceeding became a jurisdictional issue and court was legally bound to address it regardless of whether or not any objection was raised by other side – Trial Court did so and found that proceeding was not maintainable before it – Contention that date on which order was passed 15 years period was over and proceeding had thus became maintainable was found to be unacceptable – The maintainability of the proceeding was to be decided with reference to date on which Rent Control Act, 1999 came into force and not date on which order was passed by trial Court – Special leave petition dismissed. (Paras 9 to 13)
       2005 (8) Scale 762 – Distinguished.
       Facts of the Case :
       Issue in consideration in present case was validity of dismissal of eviction petition filed against Respondent 1 as not maintainable under Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 on ground that proceeding was instituted within period of 15 years since suit house was subjected to substantial renovation and additional construction as provided under Section 2(3) (f) of Act.
       Findings of the Court :
       What was cost of construction or value of single storey house that was originally let out to respondent No.1 and what was cost of construction of first floor and garage and whether or not suit house had undergone substantial renovation/additional construction within meaning of Section 2(3)(f) of Act were pure questions of fact. On the basis of evidences led before it, trial court found and held that cost incurred in additional construction/renovation was in excess of 75% of value of original single storey house. Finding of trial court was affirmed by High Court. Said finding being based on evidence brought before court did not warrant any interference by Court. Contention that date on which order was passed 15 years period was over and proceeding had thus became maintainable was found to be unacceptable.The maintainability of the proceeding was to be decided with reference to date on which Rent Control Act, 1999 came into force and not date on which order was passed by trial Court. A proceeding that was incompetent on the date the Act came into force would not revive merely because it remained pending before the Court. Proceeding under Rent Control Act being clearly not maintainable was rightly dismissed by trial Court. Special leave petition was dismissed.
       Result : Special leave petition dismissed.
       Cases referred :
       1.Sudhir G.Angur & Ors. V. M. Sanjeev & others, 2005 (8) Scale 762 – Distinguished. (Para 8)
       Counsel for the parties :
       For the Appellant : G.V. Chandreshkar and Ms. Anjana Chandrashekar, Advocates.
       For the Respondents : S.N. Bhat, N.P.S. Panwar, D.P. Chaturvedi, Girish Ananthamurthy, Ms. Vijaynthi girish and P.P. Singh, Advocates.

Judgment

Aftab Alam, J. —

1.This petition for special leave to appeal arises from an eviction proceeding. The 2nd Additional Small Causes Judge, Bangalore, held that the eviction petition (HRC No.422/99) filed against respondent no. 1 was not maintainable under the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 because the proceeding was instituted within the period of 15 years since the suit house was subjected to substantial renovation and additional construction as provided under Section 2(3)(f) of the Act. In revision, the High Court affirmed the view taken by the trial court vide Order dated 22 June, 2006 in House Rent Revision Petition No.554 of 2005. The petitioner seeks leave to file appeal against the High Court Order.

2.The facts of the case are brief and may be stated thus. The suit premises belonged to one Shankar Narayan Rao (now deceased). He inducted respondent No.1 as a tenant in the house in the year 1976. At that time it was a single storey house without any garage as an appurtenance. In the year 1988, on the request of the tenant, another storey was added and a garage was also constructed on the ground floor. Respondent No.1 then came to occupy as tenant, the entire premises, that is to say, the ground floor and the newly added first floor and the garage on a monthly rental of Rs.2500/-.

3.In 1999, Shankar Narayan Rao filed a petition under the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 seeking the eviction of respondent No.1 on a number of grounds. Respondent no.1 resisted the eviction proceeding and filed his written statement, inter alia, stating that additional construction/renovation of the house in the year 1988 was done at his expense and in that connection he had incurred the cost of Rs.6,50,000/-.

4.The Karnataka Rent Control Act was repealed and it was replaced by the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1999 with effect from December 2001. At that time the proceeding was pending before the trial court.

5.In the same year Shankar Narayan Rao died and the present petitioner and respondent No.2 got themselves substituted in his place to prosecute the eviction proceeding. Respondent No.2 is the widow of Shankar Narayan Rao and the petitioner claims to be his adopted son.

6.In course of the proceeding before it the trial court seems to have noticed the plea taken by respondent No.1 that the additional construction/renovation of the house was done in the year 1988 at a cost of Rs.6,50,000/-. On the basis of the evidences already on record he further found that the aforesaid amount was in excess of 75% of the valuation of the house and hence, the suit premises had undergone substantial renovation/construction within the meaning of Section 2(3)(f) of the Act that stipulated that to such a premises no provision of the Rent Control Act, 1999 would apply for a period of 15 years from the date of completion of construction or substantial renovation. The eviction petition in question, was filed in 1999, i.e., clearly within the period of 15 years from the date of completion of additional construction/substantial renovation of the suit premises and was, therefore, not maintainable under the Act.

7.The petitioner challenged the Order of the trial court in revision before the High Court. At this stage, the dispute which was till then only bipartite, being between the tenant on the one side and the petitioner and the second respondent on the other assumed a tripartite dimension. The widow of Shankar Narayan Rao who after the death of her husband had initially joined the petitioner in prosecuting the eviction proceeding changed her stand. A petition was filed on her behalf in the trial court stating that she came to know about a will allegedly created in favour of the petitioner, which according to her was a fake. She also disputed the petitioner’s claim of adoption by Shankar Narayan Rao and prayed for dismissing the eviction proceeding. It was in those circumstances that in the revision filed by the petitioner before the High Court she was impleaded as the sec

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2008 Supreme(SC) 1104

2008(5) Supreme 438Supreme Court of indiaHarjit Singh Bedi and Aftab Alam, JJ.B.Y. Narasimha Prasad — AppellantversusM.Veerappa & Anr. — RespondentsSpecial Leave Petition (C) No. 16453 of 2006Decided on : 21-07-08

Important PointA proceeding that was incompetent on the date the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 came into force would not revive merely because it remained pending before the Court.

Cases Referred (1)

2008(5) Supreme 438
Supreme Court of india
Harjit Singh Bedi and Aftab Alam, JJ.
B.Y. Narasimha Prasad — Appellant
versus
M.Veerappa & Anr. — Respondents
Special Leave Petition (C) No. 16453 of 2006
Decided on : 21-07-08

Important Point
A proceeding that was incompetent on the date the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 came into force would not revive merely because it remained pending before the Court.