Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 310 (KAR)

RUTHA BAI v. BALDEV SINGH

2007-06-01

K.RAMANNA

body2007
ORDER This revision petition is filed by the petitioner-landlady under Section 46(1) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 challenging the order dated 5-10-2005 passed by the XV Additional Small Causes Judge, Mayo Hall Unit, Bangalore (SCCH No. 19), in H.R.C. No. 10132 of 2004 dismissing the eviction petition filed by the revision petitioner under Section 27(2)(1) and (q) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 for want of jurisdiction. 2. In pursuance of the notice issued to the respondent, neither he has appeared before this Court nor represented through a Counsel. He remained absent. Hence, heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner and perused the records. 3. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner that the revision petitioner is a landlady of the building and she being the lawful owner having purchased the petition schedule premises in the year 1981 from her vendor for valuable consideration. At the time of purchasing the property, there was a mud house in existence with asbestos sheet roofing. So after purchasing the premises, the khata has been transferred in her name and she has been paying the taxes. The respondent herein is a tenant under her since from 1-3-2001 occupying the second floor of the petition schedule premises on a monthly rental of Rs. 2,300/- for a period of 11 months and subsequently, the rent has been increased at Rs. 2,530/- p.m. The tenancy was extended till 26-2-2004. Inspite of the respondent agreeing to vacate the premises, he failed to do so. Therefore, she was constrained to issue a legal notice dated 10-8-2004 directing the respondent to vacate and handover the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule premises. But the respondent herein sent a false and untenable contention that he is continuing in the petition schedule premises inspite of agreeing to vacate and to pay a sum of Rs. 14,000/- towards damages caused to his car by the revision petitioner which was parked by the side of the petition schedule premises to which she is not responsible. But the respondent herein sent a false and untenable contention that he is continuing in the petition schedule premises inspite of agreeing to vacate and to pay a sum of Rs. 14,000/- towards damages caused to his car by the revision petitioner which was parked by the side of the petition schedule premises to which she is not responsible. The respondent herein has taken a contention before the Trial Court that the construction of the rented premises has not been .completed within 15 years and as such, the eviction petition filed by the revision petitioner is not maintainable and the Court below had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition and on that ground only, the eviction petition came to be dismissed. It is further submitted that after filing of the revision petition, she filed an application before this Court under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code to produce certain documents as additional evidence. Along with that application, she has filed her affidavit enclosing the khata extract, registered sale deed, tax paid receipts etc. The submission of the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner is that the said I.A. No. I of 2007 is to be allowed. The documents produced by her would show that prior to purchasing the property bearing No. 134, "Sukrut", Michael Palya, Indiranagar, Bangalore-560 038, there was in existence an asbestos sheet roof mud house and she purchased the property under a registered sale deed along with the mud house which was constructed prior to 1980. Subsequently, she has obtained permission for expansion of the building from the Competent Authority after getting the khata transferred in her name. Therefore, the finding recorded by the Trial Court that the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the eviction petition filed by the landlady as it is hit by Section 2(3)(f) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 is incorrect and therefore, she prays to set aside the order under challenge and remand the matter to adduce the evidence. 4. I have carefully examined the material placed on record. 5. In order to appreciate the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, this Court has to see whether the revision petitioner has made out a ground for allowing I.A. No. 1 of 2007 filed under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code. 6. 4. I have carefully examined the material placed on record. 5. In order to appreciate the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, this Court has to see whether the revision petitioner has made out a ground for allowing I.A. No. 1 of 2007 filed under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code. 6. The lower Court records disclose that the petitioner has purchased the property bearing Kaneshmari No. 112 situated in Binnamangala, Manawarthe Kaval (commonly known as 'Michael Palya'), Krishnarajapuram Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore under the registered sale deed dated 14-7-1980, marked as Ex. P. 1 before the Trial Court. So also, she has produced the tax paid receipts and khata certificate as per Exs. P.2 and P.3 respectively. On the date of purchasing the property, her age is shown as 38 years. As on today, she is aged about 65 years. The grounds urged by the revision petitioner in her eviction petition are that she is having her only daughter who is staying along with her husband and the petitioner is a senior citizen. She is sick and suffering from several ailments. Therefore, the assistance and aid of her daughter is very much required in her old age. Therefore, the petition schedule premises is required for herself to accommodate her daughter, son-in-law and her grand children, so that they could take care of her. Of course, at the time of filing the eviction petition, the khata certificate, tax paid receipts and other medical certificates have not been produced to show that the petitioner is also suffering from heart disease, hyper-tension etc. Since she could not produce the document to show that there was existing mud house with as bestos sheet roofing at the time of purchase, the Court below held that the eviction petition cannot be entertained for want of jurisdiction as the petitioner has failed to make out a case that the provisions of Karnataka Rent Act are applicable to the petition schedule premises. 7. The main object of production of additional documents to adduce additional evidence is to prove her case and to render assistance to the Court. Therefore, the grounds made out by the revision petitioner are sufficient to allow the I.A. Hence I.A. No. I of 2007 for production of additional documents to adduce additional evidence is to be allowed. 8. 7. The main object of production of additional documents to adduce additional evidence is to prove her case and to render assistance to the Court. Therefore, the grounds made out by the revision petitioner are sufficient to allow the I.A. Hence I.A. No. I of 2007 for production of additional documents to adduce additional evidence is to be allowed. 8. At the time of arguments, the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner has sworn to the affidavit stating that Sri G. Jayaram S/o. K.P. Govindaraj was the original owner of the building and after purchase, the khata in respect of the petition schedule property measuring 30' x 40' with old asbestos sheet roofing house was transferred to her name. At the time of filing of the eviction petition, the khata obtained from the Secretary, Group Panchayat could not be produced. So also the tax paid receipts. Therefore, as on the date of filing of the eviction petition, there was in existence an old asbestos sheet roofing house in the petition schedule property and subsequently, she has obtained permission to expand the building in the year 1992. Therefore, the Explanation II of Section 2(3)(f) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 is very much applicable to the facts of the case on hand. 9. Explanation II to Section 2(3)(f) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 reads as under: "Explanation II.-Date of completion of construction' shall be the date of completion as intimated to the concerned authority or of assessment of property tax, whichever is earlier, and where the premises have been constructed in stages the date on which the initial building was completed and an intimation thereof was sent to the concerned authority or was assessed to property tax, whichever is earlier". The entire property purchased by the petitioner is measuring 30' x 40' with a mud house covered with asbestos sheet roofing. 10. According to Section 3(a) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, 'building' has been defined as under: "(a) 'Building' means any building or hut or part of a building or hut other than a farmhouse, let or to be let separately and includes.- (i) the garden, grounds and outhouses, if any appurtenant to such building, hut or part of such building or hut and let or to be let along with such building or hut or part of building or hut". 11. 11. Therefore, as on the date of filing of the eviction petition by the petitioner, there was in existence a mud house with asbestos sheet roofing. Subsequently, the petitioner obtained valid permission from the Competent Authority to expand the building in which the respondent is residing as a tenant. 12. As could be seen from the materials on record, at the request of the respondent-tenant, he was allowed to continue to stay in the petition schedule premises upto 28-2-2004. But when the legal notice has been issued to the respondent, he has given his reply as per Ex. P. 18 stating that the husband of the revision petitioner was caught by the neighbours for putting therpalin on his four-wheeler which was parked on the road beside the house and also torn off the body cover. He has agreed to vacate the premises if she pays Rs. 14,000/- for having caused damage to his four-wheeler. The paragraph 3 of Ex. P.18 discloses that they mutually agreed for discussions in the month of February 2004, he demanded for the repainting charges of vehicle to the tune of Rs. 14,000/- and simultaneously found another accommodation within his budget. But she refused to pay this amount by the said date of occupying his new house and therefore, he was constrained to continue to live at 'the same premises. 13. There is no proof as such to show that the husband of the revision petitioner has caused damage to the four-wheeler of the respondent which was parked on the road beside of his house. No complaint was filed by the respondent against the husband of the revision petitioner to show that he has intentionally caused damage to his four-wheeler. Of course, the respondent himself was examined as RW. 1 before the Court on 8-9-2005. RW. 1 has denied the suggestions put to him in the cross-examination stating that the revision petitioner has not obliged to pay Rs. 14,000/- towards the damages caused to his four-wheeler only to harass the revision petitioner. He is refusing to vacate the premises. The evidence of R.W. 1 does not disclose that he has lodged any complaint against the revision petitioner to show that the husband of the revision petitioner was responsible for having caused damage to his four-wheeler. 14,000/- towards the damages caused to his four-wheeler only to harass the revision petitioner. He is refusing to vacate the premises. The evidence of R.W. 1 does not disclose that he has lodged any complaint against the revision petitioner to show that the husband of the revision petitioner was responsible for having caused damage to his four-wheeler. Moreover, he has not examined any other independent witnesses to prove that the petition schedule premises was constructed only a few years back. So in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the revision petitioner herein has proved that she has purchased the property with a mud house existing on the site with asbestos sheet roofing from her vendor in 1980-81. Therefore, the provisions of Section 2(3)(f) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 are not applicable. Hence, the revision petition deserves to be allowed. 14. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed. The order under challenge passed by the Trial Court is hereby set aside. The respondent-tenant is directed to vacate and handover vacant possession of the petition schedule premises to the petitioner within 3 (three) months from today i.e., on or before 31-8-2007 failing which the revision petitioner is entitled to recover the same in accordance with law.