Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
H. P. SANDESH, J.
Sri Krishnaprasad A., S/o. Late Dr. A. Ramamurthy - Petitioner
Versus
Sri L. Doreswamy (Advocate), S/o. Lingappa - Respondent
House Rent Rev. Petition No.10 Of 2022
Decided On : 11-08-2023
Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 - Section 46, 2(3)(e), (1) - Property - Order of eviction - Hand over vacant possession of property - Petition is filed praying to set aside order passed and pass an order of eviction against respondent, directing him to quit and hand over vacant possession of schedule property to petitioner – Approach of Trial Court is erroneous and fails to consider factual aspects of case. [Para 26]
Finding of the Court: It is clear that possession was delivered in terms of Ex.R5 and premium amount was paid and agreement is also for a period of three years and though he took premises in year, for about 14 years he is squatting on property without vacating premises and even not accepting premium amount what he had paid and instead raised untenable grounds and also approached Rent Controller for fixation of rent, but he was not intent to comply with order of Rent Controller though he got fixed rent and he categorically admits that he is not having intention to comply with order of Rent Controller, but he wants to take shelter of fixation of fair rent in terms of Ex.R1 and very conduct of respondent is deprecated and instead of receiving an amount which he was paid as premium making all his efforts to squat on property and these are aspects has not been considered by Trial Court and hence, finding of Trial Court requires to be set aside and petition is maintainable and eviction order has to be passed against respondents - Respondent is directed to quit and vacate premises.
Result: Revision Petition is allowed
ORDER :
1. Heard the counsel for the revision petitioner and counsel appearing for the respondent.
2. This revision petition is filed under Section 46 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 praying this Court to set aside the order passed by the Chief Judge, Small Causes Court, Bengaluru, in HRC No.49/2016 dated 22.10.2021 and pass an order of eviction against the respondent, directing him to quit and hand over the vacant possession of the schedule property to the petitioner and grant such other relief as deem fit in the circumstances of the case.
3. The factual matrix of case of the petitioner herein is that, he had filed the eviction petition being the owner of the residential premises situated at ground floor of the building bearing No.34, 17th Cross, West Park Road, Malleshwaram, Bangalore, which is morefully described in the schedule and the same was leased out to the respondent who is an advocate by profession for a monthly rent of Rs.3,400/-and had received security deposit of Rs.10,00,000/-. It is also contended that both of them were friends and respondent requested the petitioner to lease out the premises and the said request was acceded to and the petitioner executed a lease deed, which was drafted by the respondent.
4. It was an understanding between the petitioner and respondent that duration of lease would be for a period of three years. It is the case of the petitioner that, in 2019 he had expressed is inability to pay the rents and requested the petitioner to deduct the rents at Rs.3,400/-per month from the advance so paid by him and to permit him to continue his tenancy till 2013, to which the petitioner agreed. In the year 2013 when the petitioner requested the respondent to vacate the premises as the term of the lease so agreed had expired, the respondent requested for extension of lease and kept on promising the petitioner to vacate the premises as and when he would find a suitable accommodation.
5. The petitioner had agreed to accommodate the respondent for a further period, but kept on insisting the respondent to vacate the premises since he intend to shift his residence to schedule premises before his retirement.
6. When the petitioner was about to retire in 2016, he met the respondent and requested him to vacate the premises, which request was ignored by the respondent and without any other alternative, sought for an order of eviction.
7. It is contended that the respondent initially deliberately did not appear before the Court and he was placed ex-parte and order of eviction was passed. Again he filed Misc.No.270/2016 and he adopted dilatory tactics and Miscellaneous Petition was allowed and matter was taken up for consideration on merits. But he contend that, the Court is having no jurisdiction and lack of jural relationship between the petitioner and respondent. It is also contended that when the matter was pending, he filed an application before the Rent Controller for fixation of fair rent to the schedule premises and the same was considered and fixed the rate of rent at Rs.21,000/-per month. The respondent himself confronted the document of lease dated 28.08.2009 and the same was impounded for insufficiency of the stamp duty and he challenged the same in HRRP No.14/2017 and the same was dismissed in coming to the conclusion that he was liable to pay a duty and penalty on the document. The Trial Court having considered the material on record answered point Nos.1 and 3 as affirmative, but dismissed the petition answering point No.2 as negative in coming to the conclusion that petition is not maintainable for want of jurisdiction as per Section 2(3)(e)(1) of the Karnataka Rent Act.
8. Being aggrieved by the finding against point No.2, the present revision petition is filed contending that when the Court held the jural relationship between the parties erroneously dismissed the petition. The Trial Court wrongly arrived that petition is not maintainable for want of jurisdiction as per Section 2(3)(e)(1) of Karna
It is well settled that rights of parties will have to be determined on basis of rights available to them on date of suit.
The court ruled that acknowledgment of rent exceeding statutory thresholds affirms jurisdiction under the Transfer of Property Act, negating claims under the Karnataka Rent Act.
It is settled law that, if no document evidencing fact of tenancy is given and if it is an oral tenancy, same has to be considered on merits.
Section 2(3)(g) of Act is clear that if premises exceeds 14 sq.mts., Act is not applicable.
The landlord-tenant relationship, the landlord's bona fide need, and the rent amount were key legal principles established in the judgment.
Tenancy rights under Section 5 of the Karnataka Rent Act are inheritable only for five years post-death, and failure to pay rent for five years constitutes grounds for eviction.
The court affirmed a landlord's right to evict a tenant under Section 27(2)(r) for family use, requiring proof of no suitable alternative accommodation while setting aside improper damage claims.
Point of Law - Appellate Authority held that the finding of the Rent Control Court that the rent agreed by the landlord and tenant is by mutual consent cannot be sustained
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
