Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 316 (KAR)

K. KRISHNA MURTHY v. LADULAL

2007-06-04

K.RAMANNA

body2007
ORDER Though the matter is listed for admission, with consent of learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Moinuddin for Sri Aravind Kumar for the respondent, the same is taken up final hearing and is being disposed of. 2. This revision petition is filed under Section 46(1) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 challenging the allowing of I.A. No. 4 filed by the respondent under Section 42(6)(b) of the Act seeking leave of the Court to contest the eviction petition filed by the revision petitioner-landlord in H.R.C. No. 447 of 2005, dated 6-9-2006. 3. The case of the revision petitioner-landlord, in brief, is that, he has filed an eviction petition against the respondent under Section 31 read with Section 27(2)(r) of the KR. Act. With great difficulty notice came to be served on the respondent by affixture. The case was posted on 1-7-2006. The respondent appeared through Counsel but not filed any application seeking leave of the Court to contest the matter. The matter was adjourned to 21-7-2006 to file objections. On that day also he has not filed any objections or application seeking leave of the Court. Again when the matter was listed on 18-8-2006 for arguments on the ground that the respondent has not filed an application seeking leave of the Court to contest the matter but the same was posted to 19-8-2006. On that day an application came to be filed i.e., I.A. No. 4 seeking permission to file objection to the main petition. The revision petitioner herein has filed objections to I.A. No.4. The Trial Court after hearing both the parties, allowed I.A. No.4 granting leave to the respondent to contest the matter. Against the said order, the revision petitioner-landlord has come up with this revision petition. 4. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner that since the respondent appeared before the Court, he has to seek leave of the Court to contest the matter on all counts. In the instant case, such application ought to have been filed on 1-7-2006. Subsequently also, he has not filed objections to the main petition nor any application under Section 42(6)(b) of the KR. Act and on 19-8-2006, when the matter was listed for arguments on main petition, the respondent filed an application i.e., I.A. No. 4 seeking leave of the Court to contest the matter which is not maintainable. Subsequently also, he has not filed objections to the main petition nor any application under Section 42(6)(b) of the KR. Act and on 19-8-2006, when the matter was listed for arguments on main petition, the respondent filed an application i.e., I.A. No. 4 seeking leave of the Court to contest the matter which is not maintainable. It is further argued that when an eviction petition is filed under Section 31(1)(c) of the K.R. Act, it is mandatory on the part of the respondent-tenant to seek leave of the Court to contest the matter as per Section 42(6)(b). When such application has not been filed, subsequent filing of the application after two-and-half months is not maintainable. Since he has not filed such an application on 1-7-2006 or on the subsequent date, filing application after two-and-half months is not at all maintainable and the Trial Court has grossly erred in allowing the application. In support of his contention, learned Counsel for the revision petitioner has relied on a decision in P.J. Surendranath v S.P. Pandurangan, wherein it has been held as follows.- "Present petition is filed under Section 27(2)(r) and Section 31(1)(c) of the Act and therefore the procedure prescribed under sub-section (6) of Section 42 is necessarily attracted - Therefore it is mandatory for the respondent/tenant to obtain leave to contest or defend the proceedings as per clause (b) to sub-section (6) of Section 42". Since he has not obtained the permission, subsequent filing of the application seeking permission is not maintainable. That apart, the learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on another decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Lakshamma and Others v B.P. Thirumala Setty and Others, wherein, it has been held as follows.- "The persons falling under the special category should not be at the mercy of procedural delay. Provisions of Sections 28 to 31 of the Act, is a beneficial legislation conferring right of immediate possession on certain group of persons in recognition of the peculiar situation they are placed in". Further it is held as follows.- "Unless the tenant makes out a substantial defence in the affidavit seeking leave of the Court to contest the matter, such leave should not be granted. By virtue of such special nature of the benefit, the right created for the landlord narrows the scope of defence by the tenant. Further it is held as follows.- "Unless the tenant makes out a substantial defence in the affidavit seeking leave of the Court to contest the matter, such leave should not be granted. By virtue of such special nature of the benefit, the right created for the landlord narrows the scope of defence by the tenant. Unless, the tenant seeks leave to contest the matter with substantial defence, the presumption that would arise in favour of the landlord falling under the special group of persons would automatically require the Court to allow the eviction petition. The seeking of leave of the Court to contest the application in such circumstance is nothing but mandatory". He has also relied on another decision in S. Shashidhara Rao v M. Vishwanath and Others, wherein it has been held as follows.- "As the application for leave to contest was rejected on the ground that it is belated one, the Trial Court ought to' have passed an order of eviction". 5. On the other hand, learned Counsel Sri Moinuddin submitted that a subsequent filing of the application seeking leave of the Court by the tenant is only a formal compliance and it is not' mandatory and declaratory. Therefore, the Trial Court granted permission to file an application seeking leave of the Court to contest the matter. Therefore, the Trial Court is right in allowing I.A. No. 4 on payment of costs. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition. Learned Counsel for the respondent has relied on a decision in Liaq Ahmed and Others v Habeeb-Ur-Rehman, while allowing the appeal of the tenants, Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows.- "From the scheme of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, it is evident that if the tenant discloses the grounds and pleads a cause which prima facie is not baseless, unreal and unfounded, the Controller is obliged to grant him leave to defend his case against the eviction sought by the landlord. The inquiry envisaged for the purpose is a summary inquiry to prima facie find out the existence of reasonable grounds in favour of the tenant. If the tenant brings to the notice of the Controller such facts as would disentitle the landlord from obtaining an order for recovery of possession, the Controller shall give him leave to contest. The law envisages the disclosure of facts and not the proof of the facts". 6. If the tenant brings to the notice of the Controller such facts as would disentitle the landlord from obtaining an order for recovery of possession, the Controller shall give him leave to contest. The law envisages the disclosure of facts and not the proof of the facts". 6. I have carefully examined the materials placed on record. No doubt the revision petitioner is the landlord. The earlier eviction filed by him came to be dismissed: This revision petition is on a different count. When a person files an eviction petition by invoking the provisions of Sections 27(2)(r) and 31(1)(c), the respondent should seek the leave of the Court to contest the matter. No such application came to be filed by the respondent on 1-7-2006. On behalf of the respondent when his Advocate filed vakalat on that day. Neither such an application came to be filed nor he filed any objections to the eviction. The order sheet in H.R.C. No. 447 of 2005 maintained by the Trial Court discloses that such an application I.A. No. IV came to be filed after two-and-a-half months i.e., on 19-8-2006 at 3 p.m. when the matter was listed for arguments on the ground of not seeking leave of the Court to contest the matter. 7. The Trial Court has passed the order under challenge presuming that if the application is not allowed, the respondent will be put to irreparable loss and prejudice will be caused to him. Regarding Section 31, the Trial Court has held that Section 31 is applicable not only to the aged widow but it is applicable to the senior citizens also. The Trial Court failed to consider the fact that the respondent has not filed such an application on the date of his appearance i.e., on 1-7-2006 to contest the matter on all grounds and the application is filed only after two-and-a-half months i.e., on 19-8-2006 and even no such grounds have been made out in his affidavit in support of his application. Mere filing of an application seeking leave of Court to contest the petition stating the grounds on which he seeks to contest the petition for eviction, without whispering anything for the said delay is a ground to not to allow the said application.