ORAL ORDER

Heard Sri Shivaprasad, for Sri S.M.Anees Ahmed, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri S.K.Mithun, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. Landlord-revision petitioner challenging the order passed by the learned Chief Judge, Small Causes Court, Bengaluru, in HRC No.22/2019, allowing the application filed by the tenant under Section 43 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999.

3. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under:

Revision Petitioner-land lord claims that he has purchased the property from the erstwhile landlord by name Sri A.G.Lakshmana by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 28.03.2018. Admittedly, the respondent-tenant was a tenant under Lakshmana at an undisputed point of time. Soon after execution of the sale deed, by virtue of operation of law under Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act there is automatic attornment of tenancy.

4. The land lord-subsequent purchaser filed an eviction petition to evict the respondent-tenant from the premises by filing necessary application under Section 27(2)(a) and (r) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999.

5. The respondent-tenant appeared before the Court, admitted that he was a tenant under A.G.Lakshmana, but since A.G.Lakshmana has filed a suit in O.S.No.7041/2021 seeking cancellation of sale deed as against the subsequent purchaser who is the petitioner in the HRC petition, he disputed the landlord and tenant relationship by filing an application under Section 43 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999.

6. Learned Trial Judge accepted the contentions urged on behalf of the tenant and allowed the application filed under Section 43 of the Karnataka Rent Act, and stopped further proceedings till the final disposal of O.S.No.7041/2021. Said order is assailed in the present revision petition.

7. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner, reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition, contended that the tenant has no right to dispute the title of the revision petitioner. Pendency of the suit between the revision petitioner and the erstwhile owner has got nothing to do insofar as the deciding the relationship between the revision petitioner and the respondent and sought for allowing the revision petition.

8. Per contra, Sri Mithun, learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned Order. He further contends that in the event the erstwhile owner-A.G.Lakshmana succeeds in the suit, the Order of eviction would be held as nullity and therefore, eviction petition was rightly stopped from further adjudication by the learned Trial Judge in the impugned Order and sought for dismissal of the revision petition.

9. Having heard the parties, this Court perused the material on record, meticulously.

10. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that the erstwhile land lord-A.G.Lakshmana has sold the property in favour of the revision petitioner by virtue of a registered sale deed. By operation of law, tenancy gets automatically attorned in favour of subsequent purchaser. Tenant therein cannot question the title of the subsequent purchaser. If A.G.Lakshmana succeeds in the suit, then there is option always available for the respondent to seek for restitution of his possession.

11. Under such circumstances, the application filed under Section 43 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 by the respondent ought to have been dismissed by the learned Trial Judge, having regard to the language employed in Section 43 of the Karnataka Rent Act and the scope of enquiry under Section 43 of the Karnataka Rent Act.

12. In the case on hand, since at an undisputed point of time, there was no dispute as to land lord and tenant relationship, tenant cannot now question the title of the revision petitioner who is the purchaser of the property by process known to law.

13. Accordingly, the following:

ORDER (i) The Revision Petition is allowed.

(ii) It is held that there exists landlord-tenant relationship between the revision petitione