Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 688 (KAR)

Abdul Rehman v. Jayalakshmi

2012-08-20

N.ANANDA

body2012
Judgment 1. The petitioner has challenged the order of eviction made in HRC No.17 of 2010 dated 21-5-2012. 2. I have heard Sri Papi Reddy, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri M. Krishna Murthy, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3. 3. The petitioner (tenant) has contended that there is no jural relationship of Landlord and tenant between the petitioner and respondents. The petitioner (tenant) has contended that he is in possession of suit property under agreement of sale dated 6-3-2002 executed by Late Ramakrishna Reddy (husband of first respondent and father of respondents 2 and 3) for a sale consideration of Rs.3,50,000/-. The petitioner (tenant) has contended that out of the sale consideration, he had paid a sum of Rs.3,05,000/-to Late Ramakrishna Reddy on several occasions. During lifetime of Ramakrishna Reddy, he was postponing the execution of registered sale deed. 4. The petitioner has filed a suit for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 6-3-2002 in O.S.No.8067 of 2010 in the court of Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore and the said suit is pending. The respondents have denied that Late Ramakrishna Reddy had executed agreement of sale dated 6-3-2002 in favour of petitioner and the petitioner is not in possession of suit schedule property in part performance of alleged agreement of sale. 5. The learned trial judge on appreciation of evidence led by the parties has held that Late Ramakrishna Reddy was the owner of suit schedule property. The Katha extracts as per Ex.P.1 to P.3 stand in the name of Late Ramakrishna Reddy. The petitioner (tenant) had tendered agreement of sale dated 06.03.2002 in his evidence however, the respondents/landlord took objections regarding insufficiency of stamp. Thereafter, the document was not tendered in evidence. The respondent did not place any material before the trial court to show that he had made good deficiency of stamp duty. 6. In O.S.No.2916 of 2007 filed by the petitioner herein against Late Ramakrishna Reddy, his brother Kodandarama Reddy and mother Padmamma, it is nowhere stated that Late Ramakrishna Reddy had executed an agreement of sale dated 6-3-2002 which was sought to be pressed into service before the court below. O.S.No.2916 of 2007 was filed against the aforestated persons in respect of suit schedule property for the relief of permanent injunction, restraining defendants (aforestated persons) from dispossessing plaintiff (petitioner herein) without due course of law. 7. O.S.No.2916 of 2007 was filed against the aforestated persons in respect of suit schedule property for the relief of permanent injunction, restraining defendants (aforestated persons) from dispossessing plaintiff (petitioner herein) without due course of law. 7. The suit filed by the petitioner for specific performance of agreement dated 6-3-2002 is pending in O.S.No.8067 of 2010. The law is fairly well settled that, if there is bona fide dispute relating to title to the property, the parties shall be directed to have adjudication of their rights in the civil court. If the petitioner had bona fide reasons to deny the jural relationship of landlord and tenant, he should have taken recourse to Section 43 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999. The petitioner for the reasons best known to him has not taken recourse to Section 43 before the trial court. 8. On consideration of documents relied upon by the parties and previous proceedings, in particular, the plaint filed in O.S.No.2916 of 2007 by the petitioner, a suspicion would arise about genuineness of agreement of sale dated 6-3-2002. It is also noticed from the records that the shop, which forms part and parcel of schedule premises, was delivered by petitioner to respondent. In the eviction proceedings relating to shop, the petitioner/tenant has not disputed the title relying on the agreement of sale dated 6-3-2002. These facts are sufficient to hold that there is jural relationship of landlord and tenant between petitioner and respondents. 9. The learned trial judge on consideration of evidence adduced by the petitioners has held that petitioners have proved requirement of schedule property and also proved that petitioner/tenant has not paid rents and thus passed an order of eviction under Section 27(2)(a) and 27(2)(2)(r) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999. 10. Sri G. Papi Reddy, learned counsel for petitioner would submit that in view of pendency of O.S.No.8067 of 2010 wherein, the petitioner had sought for decree against respondents for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 6-3-2002, the learned trial judge should not have passed the impugned order and the learned trial judge should have directed the parties to agitate their rights in O.S.No.8067 of 2010. 11. It is true that suit filed in O.S.No.8067 of 2010 is pending. 11. It is true that suit filed in O.S.No.8067 of 2010 is pending. Therefore, further discussion about genuineness or otherwise of agreement of sale dated 6-3-2002 and enforceability of agreement of sale dated 6-3-2002 is likely to cause prejudice to the plaintiff (petitioner herein) in O.S.No.8067 of 2010. 12. As already stated, the petitioner (tenant) has not taken recourse to Section 43 before the court below. Therefore, the contention of learned counsel for petitioner that the court below should have directed the parties to agitate their rights in O.S.No.8067 of 2010 cannot be accepted. It is needless to state that if petitioner were to succeed in O.S.No.8067 of 2010 and if he is granted decree for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 6-3-2002, then, petitioner would be entitled to possession of the suit schedule property in terms of decree that may be made in his favour. Therefore, petitioner (tenant) cannot contend that till disposal of O.S.No.8067 of 2010, respondents have no right to seek order of eviction. 13. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any reasons to interfere with the impugned order. The petition is accordingly dismissed. 14. The petitioner (tenant) shall vacate and hand over vacant possession of suit schedule property to the respondents within 90 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The amount deposited by the petitioner with this court shall be paid to respondents. 15. The order of trial court is confirmed without prejudice to right of petitioner to prosecute O.S.No.8067 of 2010. It is made clear that the observations made herein shall not be pressed into service in O.S.No.8067 of 2010 wherein, the genuineness or otherwise of agreement of sale dated 6-3-2002 and also enforceability of agreement of sale dated 6-3-2002 are the contentious issues between the parties.