IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 30^TH DAY OF JULY, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

HRRP NO.11 OF 2021 (EVI)

BETWEEN:

SRI. HANUMANTHAPPA H.

SIDDALINGAPPANAVAR

S/O LATE SRI.HONNAPPA

AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS

R/AT 148, MATADAHALLI

FURTHER EXTENSION

R.T.NAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 032

… PETITIONER

(BY SRI.GANGADHARA R. GURUMATH, SR. COUNSEL FOR

SRI. RAVIPRAKASH T., ADV. AND

SRI. AVIN TIPPANNA H., ADV.)

AND:

1.

SMT. LEELAVATHI P. MAHALE

W/O SRI. PADMANABHA MAHALE

AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, 9

SUPREME ENCLAVE

MAYUR VIHAR, PHASE I

NEW DELHI – 110 091

2.

SMT. V. SULOCHNA

D/O SRINIVASA SHETTY

AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS

NO.835, F CROSS

22^ND MAIN ROAD

JAYANAGAR T. BLOCK

BENGALURU – 560 041

… RESPONDENT

RESPONDENT NO.2

DELETED

AS

PER

ORDER

DATED

10.06.2021

AND

13.07.2021

2

(BY SRI.PADMANABHA P. MAHALE, SR.COUNSEL FOR

SRI. JAYARAJ D. S., ADV. AND

SRI. SANDESH C. R., FOR C/R-1;

VIDE ORDER DATED 14.06.2021

NOTICE TO R-2 IS DISPENSED WITH)

THIS HRRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 46 (1) OF THE

KARNATAKA RENT ACT, 1999, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT

AND

AWARD

DATED

02.01.2021

PASSED

IN

HRC.NO.1082/1995 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL

SMALL

CAUSES

JUDGE

AND

ACMM,

BANGALORE,

ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 27(2)(j)

AND (o) OF KARNATAKA RENT ACT.

THIS HRRP HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED

ON 13.07.2021 FOR ORDERS AND COMING ON FOR

PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT

MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

Aggrieved by the order dated 02.01.2021 passed

by I Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes,

Bengaluru, in HRC No.1082/1995, respondent no.1

therein has preferred this revision petition.

2.

The case of the petitioner is that the

ground floor of the premises bearing no.148, situated

at Matadahalli, R.T.Nagar, Bengaluru (hereinafter

referred to as the property) belonged to one late

3

Parappa K.Kalligudda. He inducted the petitioner as a

tenant. Since then, the petitioner is in enjoyment of

the said property. It is the contention of the

petitioner that after the demise of late Parappa

K.Kalligudda, there is a dispute as to the ownership of

the property and respondent no.1 has perfected her

title over the property only on 10.10.2018 when the

Bangalore Development Authority executed a sale

deed in respect of the property in her favour.

However, respondent no.1 contending that she is the

owner of the property instituted proceedings before

the court below in the year 1995 itself by way of HRC

No.1082/1995 and sought for evicting the petitioner

herein from the premises. It is the further contention

of the petitioner that respondent no.1 claims title to

the property by virtue of a sale deed dated

24.12.1993 but the same was not registered by the

Sub-Registrar till 27.09.2018. It is also contended

4

that the sale deed also was not executed following all

the procedures as contemplated in the Registration

Act, 1908 and the Rules made thereunder and proper

title has not passed as to respondent no.1 herein. As

on the date of institution of HRC No.1082/1995,

respondent no.1 was not the owner and there was no

jural relationship of land lord and tenant between the

petitioner and respondent and hence the said petition

ought to have been dismissed by the court below and

it erred in allowing the same. It is also contended

that there was a dispute as to title between

respondent nos.1 and 2 and as already stated above,

the issue was solved and respondent no.1 has become

the owner of the property only on 10.10.2018, and

thus, respondent no.2 has been deleted as a party

from the proceedings presently. The petitioner also

contended that the said petition has been preferred

under Section 21(1)(h) of the Karnataka Rent Control

5

Act, 1961 and the ingredients of the same have not

been proved by respondent no.1 and even if i