DATED

06.03.2021

PASSED

IN

RRP.NO.7/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT

AND SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K., MANGALURU, ALLOWING THE

REVISION PETITION AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND

DECREE DATED 26.06.2020 PASSED ON IA.NO. VIII IN

HRC.NO.11/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL CIVIL

JUDGE AND JMFC., MANGALURU, ALLOWING THE APPLICATION

FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11(d) OF CPC., FOR REJECTION

OF PETITION.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,

THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

The respondent herein had filed HRC No.11/2016 under

Section 27(2)(r) of the Karnataka Rent Act, for a direction to

the petitioner herein to hand over the vacant possession of the

schedule premises as the same is required for personal

occupation.

In the said proceedings, the petitioner herein filed

an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) r/w with Section 151

of C.P.C., stating that the petition is not maintainable, since,

the Appellate Court, in a suit filed by the respondent had

recorded the categorical findings that the respondent herein

had failed to prove the jural relationship of landlord and tenent,

hence the suit is barred by Section 11 of CPC. The Trial Court

allowed the application rejecting the plaint against which

respondent filed a Revision (Rent) petition under Section 46(2)

of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1991. The revision Court allowed

the petition and rejected the plaint stating that the petition is

barred in view of the categorical finding recorded by the First

- 3 -

Appellate Court in suit filed by the respondent for recovery,

possession of the said property from the petitioner herein.

Hence, this petition.

3.

I have considered the submissions made by the

learned counsel for the parties.

4.

The respondent had filed a suit for recovery of

possession of the subject property from the petitioner. The suit

was decreed, against which the petitioner filed an appeal under

Section 96 of CPC before the First Appellate Court. The First

Appellate Court set aside the decree on the ground that the

petition under Section 27(2)(r) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999

was not maintainable since, that there exists no jural

relationship of landlord and tenant, and there was no

attornment of tenancy in favour of the plaintiff. However,

under the provisions of Karnataka Rent Act 1999, there is no

requirement for attornment of tenancy as provided under

Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act. The revisional

Court taking into consideration of the same has rightly passed

the impugned order.

5.

I do not find any illegality in the order passed by

the First Revisional Court. Accordingly, the petition stands

dismissed.

6.

The Trial Court to adjudicate the petition filed by

the respondent under Section 26(2)(r) of the Karnataka Rent

Act 1999 on the available evidence on record without being

- 4 -

influenced by the observation made by the First revisional

Court.

All contention are kept open.

Sd/-

JUDGE

HR

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 68