2020 Supreme(Kar) 89

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
K.S. Mudagal, J.
Smt. M. Sharada - Petitioner
Versus
Sri Immanuel Kariappa Since Dead By His Lrs And Ors. – Respondents
H.R.R.P.No.50 & 51 of 2011
Decided On : 28-04-2020

Headnote:

Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 - Section 43 – Civil Procedure Code - Section 115 – Tenants – Dishonor of cheque - Whether those two conditions were satisfied is point to be considered in these cases - Whether on his own account or on account of or on behalf of or for benefit of any other person or as a trustee guardian or receiver for any other person or who would so receive rent or to be entitled to receive rent if premises were let to a tenant - Whether persons are landlord and tenant and it has been shown that they have been acting as such burden of proving that they do not stand or have ceased to stand to each other in those relationships respectively he is on person who affirms it - Whether respondent discharged such burden - Whether question of merger of rights of lessee and owner of property is a complicated question which cannot be examined by Court under Section 27 of Act - Trial court purportedly acting under Section 43 of Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 dropped eviction proceedings initiated by petitioner against respondents herein and directed petitioner to approach Civil Court for declaration of her rights - Subject matter of above cases were shown in eviction petition as schedule ‘A’ and ‘B’ properties - Schedule A property in both cases was nonagricultural land measuring cents - In said land several buildings existed and they were let out to several tenants – Held, Respondents admitted that they were tenants under petitioner and they were paying rent to her all along - Their only contention was that they have purchased rights of ownership himself from his heirs therefore there is a merger of their right of sub tenant with right of owner/original lesser - Therefore they claim that they are not liable to pay rent or vacate premises - Therefore once jural relationship was admitted presumption of such relationship was in favor of petitioner - Burden was on respondents to prove that such relationship was ceased – Though petitioner in her evidence deny suggestion that respondents have purchased property and relationship of executants of those sale deeds tenants did not produce said sale deeds relied upon by them - They did not enter witness box to substantiate their case - In HRC first respondent did not set up any sale deed in his favor but contended that his daughter and daughter in law have purchased property - When respondents did not have seriousness of proving their case at least by producing relevant documents and leading evidence it becomes hard to accept that dispute raised by them is genuine one - Thus it is clear that law on point of merger was well settled by this Court in case and there was no complicated question of law which could not be decided by Court in proceedings under Rent Act - Even assuming for arguments sake that respondents have purchased property or his heirs as alleged and petitioner committed breach of agreements respondents had to work out their remedy in appropriate proceedings for possession or recovery of rent etc. failure of trial Court and District Court in appreciating these aspects while driving petitioner to Civil Court by invoking Section 43 of Act was therefore wholly erroneous under law and facts of case - Admittedly respondents did not pay rent denying jural relationship and failed to prove ground of denial – Therefore they clearly incurred liability of eviction under Section 27(2)(a) and (o) of Act - Section 27(2)(h) deals with requirement of premises by landlord for purpose of building rebuilding or making any substantial addition or alterations to same - Section 27(2)(r) deals with requirement of premises by landlord for his own use and occupation either in same form or in reconstructed form - Though petition is filed under section 27(2)(h) and (r) of Act in petitions it is only said that premises are required for making substantial alterations to same - In affidavits filed by way of chief examination absolutely there is no whisper about requirement of premises for reconstruction/substantial alteration - Therefore these are not fit cases to grant eviction on grounds under Section 27(2)(h) and (r) of Act – Petitions allowed