ORDER

This revision petition is filed by the tenant challenging the judgment and decree dated 05.10.2013 passed by Principal Civil Judge, Mangalore, D.K., in HRC No.6/2010 and the judgment and decree dated 06.07.2017 passed in RRP No.2/2014 passed by III Addl. District and Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangaluru. Challenging the said concurrent judgment and decree, this second revision petition is filed.

2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:

The respondents herein claiming to be owners of petition schedule premises have filed petition under Section 27(2)(a)(j)(h)(o) and (p) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 (for short ‘Rent Act’) against the petitioner stating that the petitioner is tenant of the premises and filed petition for the eviction. The HRC Court has allowed the petition and directed the petitioners herein to vacate and handover schedule premises.

3. Being aggrieved by it, the petitioners herein have preferred first revision petition before the District Court and the District Court has dismissed the said rent revision petition by confirming the judgment and decree passed by the HRC Court. Being aggrieved by said judgment and decree, the petitioner has preferred the instant revision petition challenging both the judgments and decree.

4. Heard the arguments of both sides and perused the materials on record.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondent is not the owner of premises and title of the property is not conveyed legally from his vendor. Further submitted that petitioners are tenant of erstwhile owner of the premises, but not tenant of the respondents. It is argued that on 24.01.1996 there was a sale deed executed between the respondent and Saraswathi V. Athikari and before presenting the said sale deed to the registering authority, the owner died on 29.01.1996, but said sale deed was presented to the registering authority on 06.02.1996 by General Power of Attorney holder. Therefore, submitted that sale deed might have been executed on 24.01.1996 by the GPA holder on behalf of the owner, but on 29.01.1996 the owner died, therefore the GPA has become ineffective and all the powers conferred on the GPA holder were extinguished on the date of death of the owner. Therefore, presenting sale deed for registration before the registering authority on 06.02.1996 is not amounting to validly presented sale deed. Therefore, there is no conveyance of title from previous owner to the respondents herein. Hence, the petitioners are not tenants under respondents. Thus, disputed the jural relationship of the owner and the tenant. Therefore, ownership of respondent and evidence revealed that respondent has not been got transferred and acquired title and whenever the sale deed registered is void one, cannot be termed as a valid transfer. Therefore, when a title of respondents is defective, he cannot claim owner of the premises. Thus, the petitioner is not tenant of the respondents and this legal position is lost sight by both the Courts below. Hence, prays to set aside the judgments and decree passed by both the Courts below.

6. In support of his submission, he places reliance on the following judgments of the Supreme Court:

(i) (1990) 1 SCC 252: SUBHASH CHANDRA v. MOHAMMAD SHARIF AND OTHERS (ii) AIR 1966 SC 605: AMBIKA PRASAD THAKUR AND OTHERS v. RAM EKBAL RAI (DEAD) BY HIS LRS AND OTHERS, ETC.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/owners submitted that respondent has purchased property from previous owner and has become owner of the premises. Thus, the petitioner is tenant under the agreement. Therefore, the respondent has filed eviction petition and it is rightly considered by both the Courts below. Further submitted that the petitioners herein have not challenged the title of respondent and has not disputed the jural relationship of owner and the tenant and therefore the petitioner has waived his right as per Section 43(2) of the Rent Act. Therefore, when petitioner has not challenged the title