Back
2008 Supreme(Kar) 316
2008 (4) KLO 3044
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Mohan Shantangoudar, J.
H.R.R.P. No. 554/2006
M. Ethiraj - Petitioner
Vs.
Smt. Farida Khanum - Respondent
Decided on 9-6-2008
Petitioner: Sri S.Z.A. Khureshi, Adv.
Respondent: Sri S.A.H. Razvi, Adv.
Result: H.R.R.P. allowed.
Headnote:INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 - Sections 17 to 21: [Mohan Shantanagoudar, J] Admissions - Stray sentence elicited in the cross examination - Reliability - Held, Admissions are relevant and the best piece of evidence. There cannot be any dispute that an admission is the best evidence against the party making it and though not conclusive, shifts the onus to the maker on the principle that what a party admits must be true or may be reasonably presumed to be true so that until the presumption is rebutted, the fact admitted must be taken to be true. An admission must be examined as a whole and not in parts. It is settled law that an admission of any party has to be read in its entirety and no statement out of context can constitute admission on any fact. The Court may reject the admission if it is satisfied from other surrounding circumstances that it is untrue. The admission must be used either as a whole or not at all. It is also equally settled that the stray sentence elicited in the cross-examination could hardly be construed as admission.
KARNATAKA RENT ACT, 1999 - Sections 27(2)(r) & 2(3)(f): [Mohan Shantanagoudar, J] Eviction Petition - Rejection of - Finding of the HRC Court, that the Rent Act is not applicable to the premises as the eviction petition is filed within 15 years of completion of the construction of the building in which the premises is situated - Revision against - Admission of landlord in the cross examination with regard to the year of completion of construction of the entire building and not the premises in question - Held, If the entire material brought in by the landlord and the tenant is read as a whole, it can be safely said that the landlord must have stated in his cross-examination about the completion of the building in the year 1992-93, which refers to the second floor of the building and not the premises in question. As could be seen from the provisions of Section 3(3)(f), the word used is "premises" and not the "building". Even in the cross examination the tenant has merely said that "building" is constructed in the year 1992-93. He has not used the word "premises". The premises (ground floor portion) was already constructed in the year 1989 itself i.e., prior t the execution of agreement of lease. It does not refer to the entire building. In this view of the matter, the order of the Court below cannot be sustained and the same is liable to be quashed.
Mohan Shantanagoudar, J
Petitioner is the landlord of the premises in question, of which the respondent is the tenant. The petitioner filed eviction petition under Section 27 (2)(r) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, for eviction of the respondent from the schedule premises.
The Court below dismissed the eviction petition on the ground that the Rent Act is not applicable to such premises as the eviction petition is filed within 15 years of completion of the construction of the building in which the premises is situated.
2. The premises in question is in the ground floor of the building, which has totally three floors that is ground, first and second. Petitioner is aged about 70 years. According to him, he has suffered heart attack and he was advised rest and further advised not to climb stairs etc. Wife of the petitioner is stated to be a diabetic patient, having arthritis and experiences pain while climbing the stairs. For the present, the petitioner is residing in the first floor of the building and according to him, it is very inconvenient for the couple to climb the stairs very often. Since there is no other reasonably suitable alternative accommodation available to the petitioner, he filed the eviction petition on the ground that he needs the premises for his bona fide use and occupation. The petition was opposed by the respondent-tenant by inter alia contending that the premises in question is a new premises and that the eviction is filed within 15 years of its construction. As aforementioned, the Court below dismissed the eviction petition as not maintainable only on the ground that the Rent Act is not applicable to such premises as the eviction petition is filed within 15 years of the construction of the building in question.
3. Section 2 (3)(f) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, reads thus:
“Section 2 - Application of the Act xxx xxxx xxxx
(3) Nothing contained in this Act shall apply,
(f): To any premises constructed or substantially renovated, either before or after the commencement of this Act for a period of fifteen years from the date of completion of such construction or substantial renovation.”
Thus, it is clear that, for 15 years after the completion of the premises or substantive renovation, the Karnataka Rent Act is not applicable.
The Court below on the stray sentence containing an admission of the petitioner, has held that 15 years have not elapsed after construction of the building and therefore, the eviction petition filed within the said period is not maintainable.
4. The Court below has laid emphasis on the first sentence of cross-examination of PW-1 - petitioner herein. It is no doubt true that he has stated in the first sentence of his cross-examination that the building was constructed in the year 1991 or 1992. Only on that stray sentence, the Court below has held against the petitioner. Other attending circumstances and other material on record, more particularly, the admission of tenant, are not at all given due weightage by the Court below.
5. Admittedly, the Lease Agreement EX.P-11 was entered into between the parties on 20th of April 1989. Thus, it is clear that the tenant has occupied the premises in and around 20th of April 1989. The eviction petition has been filed on 23.11.2004. If really the building was not completed as on 20th of April 1989, the tenant would not have agreed to occupy the premises and would not have occupied the premises then. In this context, it is relevant to note the admissions of the tenant in his cross-examination. The tenant has categorically admitted that, after negotiation, the Lease Agreement was entered into as per Ex.P-11, and that he has paid advance amount; that when he occupied the petition premises, the landlord had already residing in the first floor portion that is above the petition premises; that the landlord did not undertake any construction of the building after the tenant occupied the petition premises. These admissions would amply go to show that
