Point of Law: Once ownership is transferred, transferee becomes owner of premises, tenant cannot dispute right of transferee landlord to maintain an eviction petition.

ORDER :

1. This HRRP is filed challenging the order dated 20.12.2018 passed in Rent Revision Petition No.15/2018 on the file of III Additional District and Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangaluru and also praying the Court to set aside the order passed on I.A.No.V in HRC No.21/2011 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge, Mangaluru, D.K.

2. The factual matrix of the case before the Trial Court is that the respondent in this revision petition had filed the eviction petition and the same is numbered as HRC No.21/2011 and sought for an order of eviction under the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 (for short ‘the Act of 1999’) on the ground that he requires the premises to construct a godown and for expansion of his business and the premises is also old one and it may collapse at any time. The petitioner herein has filed the objection statement denying the relationship between them contending that there is no landlord and tenant relationship between them and sought for an order of dismissal of the petition and an interlocutory application has been filed invoking Section 43 of the Act and the same was numbered as I.A.No.V. An enquiry was held and the respondent herein examined as PW1 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P18 and the petitioner herein has examined as RW1 and got marked the documents at Ex.R1 to R8. The Trial Court after considering the material on record held that there is a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and rejected the application vide order dated 13.07.2018. As against the said order, the revision petition was filed under Section 46 of the Act of 1999 challenging the order passed on I.A.No.V. The revision Court also dismissed the said petition vide order dated 20.12.2018. Hence, being aggrieved by the said order, the present revision petition is filed under Section 115 of CPC.

3. The main contention of the revision petitioner herein that both the Trial Court as well as the revisional Court have committed an error in holding that there is a landlord and tenant relationship between the parties but there is no existence of such relationship between them and the respondent herein has not produced any document of lease or rent receipt to prove the said fact and there was no suggestion to the petitioner that there exists a landlord and tenant relationship. Hence, both the Courts have committed an error. It is contended that Rent Court does not have jurisdiction to pass an order of eviction unless the jural relationship of tenant and landlord is established and the Trial Court and the revisional Court has not considered this aspect and erroneously dismissed the application and revision and hence, it requires interference.

4. The counsel for the revision petitioner vehemently contend that both the Courts have committed an error in holding that there is jural relationship between the parties in the absence of documentary evidence to establish the same hence, the said Courts ought not to have pass such an order. There is not even admission in this regard except stating that ‘the landlord’ and the same does not convey and establish the jural relationship between the parties. Both the Courts mainly concentrated on the evidence of RW1 wherein he admitted that the petitioner is the son of landlord Sri Ganapathi Pai and the same is not an admission wherein the relationship between the petitioner and the landlord is disputed and not admitted the ownership and tenancy and hence, the very approach of both the Courts is erroneous.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent would vehemently contend that the second revision is not maintainable since the impugned order is also a revision under Section 46 of the Act of 1999 and the revision against the revision order is not maintainable. The counsel also vehemently contend that both the Courts have taken note of the admission of RW1 and the revisional Court also extracted the admission of RW1 while passing an order in paragraph 17 and discussed the fact