Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
H.P. SANDESH, J.
M. Shankar Son of Manoharan & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
M/s. Switching Power Conversion Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. - Respondents
RFA No.1926 of 2013 C/W RFA Nos.1924 of 2013 and 1925 of 2013 (EJT)
Decided On : 20-12-2019
Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 134 - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Rule 95 and 96 - Order 21 - Sale certificate was issue - Purchase property - Whether plaintiff proves that there is relationship of lesser and lessee between the plaintiff and defendant as contended - Whether plaintiff proves that the tenancy of defendant has been determined and same is in accordance with law - Whether plaintiff proves that the defendant is in arrears of rent in respect of suit schedule property if so as what is the arrears of rent payable by defendant - Whether suit of plaintiff is within time - Whether defendant proves that suit of plaintiff is not maintainable for want jurisdiction, cause of action as contended - Whether plaintiff is entitled to reliefs sought for - What order or decree – Held, It is contention defendants that there was no adornment tenancy and no jurally relationship between parties and there was no any lawful termination of tenancy - First would like to refer with regard to jurally relationship between parties - Defendants did not dispute fact that property was purchased by plaintiff in auction and also did not dispute confirmation of sale and issuance of sale certificate - When such being case defendants cannot contend that there was no jurally relationship between parties - Defendants categorically admit that they were tenants Shiva Reddy who was judgment debtor and since he did not pay loan aunties property was sold in auction in favors plaintiff - When sale was confirmed and sale certificate has been issued same creates relationship between parties as landlord and tenant Section Transfer of Property Act by operation of law and hence defendants cannot contend that there was no jurally relationship between parties - Other contention defendants is that there was no lawful termination tenancy and same also cannot be accepted for reason that immediately after purchase of property notice was issued to all defendants on defendants have also filed separate civil suit seeking for relief of bare injunction against plaintiff– Appeal dismissed
JUDGMENT :
These three appeals are filed against the judgment and decree passed in O.S.Nos.7810/2007, 7204/2007, 7468/2007 dated 19-08-2013 on the file of III Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore City.
2. The parties are referred to as per their original rankings before the Court below to avoid confusion and for the convenience of the Court.
3. The brief facts of the case:
4. It is contended in O.S.No.7810/2007 that defendant is a tenant with respect to a portion of the Schedule ‘A’ property measuring to an extent of 350 square feet on monthly rent of Rs.2,000/-, in O.S.No.7204/2007 to an extent of 300 square feet on monthly rent of Rs.3,000/- and in O.S.No.7468/2007 to an extent of 200 square feet on monthly rent of Rs.2000/-. The said premises in occupation of the defendants in all the suits are described as ‘B’ Schedule property.
5. It is the case of the plaintiff in all the suits that immediately after purchasing the property called upon the defendants to pay rents from the date of purchase by issuing notice dated 22.11.2004. It is also the case of the plaintiff that immediately after issuance of notices, the defendants filed the suits in O.S.No.9299/2004, 9208/2004 and 9300/2004 seeking the relief of permanent injunction against the plaintiff and all the suits came to be dismissed. It is the case of the plaintiff in all the suits that notice of termination of tenancy was issued on 7.9.2007 in O.S.No.7810/2007, on 09.08.2007 in O.S.No.7204/2007 and on 04.08.2007 in O.S.No.7468/2007 asking the defendants to quit or vacate the premises on or before 31.08.2007.
6. It is also the case of the plaintiff in all the suits that inspite the termination notice was issued, defendants did not vacate the suit schedule premises and also not paid the rents. Hence, the plaintiff claimed the damages of Rs.10,000/per month in O.S.No.7810/2007 from 01.10.2007 and also claimed arrears of rent to the tune of Rs.66,000/- for the period from December 2004 to 30.09.2007 at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month, claimed the arrears of rent to the tune of Rs.96,000/- from December 2004 till 30.07.2007 at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month in O.S.No.7204/2007 and claimed damages of Rs.9,000/- from the defendant and in O.S.No.7468/2007 claimed arrears of Rs.64,000/- from December 2004 till 31.7.2007 at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month and also claimed damages of Rs.9,000/- per month.
7. In pursuance of the suit summons, respective defendants appeared in their respective suits and filed the written statement raising common contention that suit is barred by law of limitation since the application is not filed within one year from the date of confirmation of sale. Article 134 of the Limitation Act, 1963 provides for filing of the application within one year from the date of confirmation of sale but the suits are filed after the expiry of three years from the date of confirmation of sale i.e., 3.10.2007. The other contention of the defendants is that the suits are not maintainable since the same are barred under Order 7 Rule 1(e) and (f) of the CPC. There is no separate provision under CPC for recovery of possession and hence, the plaintiff ought to have filed the application under Order XXI Rule 95 of CPC to take possession from the Debts Recovery Tribunal.
8. It is
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
