Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1036 (KAR)

C. S. HARIKRISHNA v. R. NARAYANA RAO

2014-12-02

ARAVIND KUMAR

body2014
ORDER These two revision petitions are filed by the tenant being aggrieved by orders dated 15.09.2014 and 31.07.2014, whereunder interlocutory applications filed under Section 42(6) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, and under Section 151 CPC seeking rejection of claim made by legal heirs of deceased petitioner to come on record and prosecute the claim made by deceased landlord, as not maintainable on the ground of tenancy is not heritable and also order rejecting permission to file additional statement of objections to amended petition. 2. I have heard the arguments of Sri. Rakshit.K.N, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri. R.B. Sadashivappa, learned counsel appearing for respondents. 3. Deceased Sri. R.Narayana Rao filed a petition under Section 27(2)(r) & Section 31(2) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, (For short ‘Act’) seeking eviction of respondent contending interalia that he is running a Trust under the name and style of “Smt. Gowramma Rama Rao Trust” in the second floor portion of plaint schedule property for the past four (4) years to the benefit of economically poor students; petitioner being one of the Trustees of said Trust, is finding difficulty in providing adequate drinking water to said poor students staying and studying in the second floor premises namely, due to low pressure there is no adequate water supply and as such, students are undergoing lot of hardship and inconvenience due to shortage of water and he intends to construct a sump in the plaint schedule property leased to respondents to overcome water problem and he has intended to donate the schedule premises to Trust to overcome the said water problem and hence, plaint schedule property is required. 4. During the pendency of said eviction petition, petitioner expired intestate. Hence, his son and daughters filed an application to come on record and said application came to be allowed by trial Court vide order dated 13.06.2014 and they were permitted to come on record, which application was also opposed to by respondent. Son and daughters having come on record in the eviction petition, filed amended petition after making necessary correction in the cause title of petition. No other plea has been raised in the amended petition. It is thereafter respondent filed an application under Section 42(6)(c) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, seeking rejection of claim made by legal heirs of deceased petitioner and consequently to reject the petition. No other plea has been raised in the amended petition. It is thereafter respondent filed an application under Section 42(6)(c) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, seeking rejection of claim made by legal heirs of deceased petitioner and consequently to reject the petition. Said application was preceeded by an order of rejection of application filed by respondent under Section 151 CPC praying to permit him to file additional statement of objections to amended petition, which application also came to be rejected vide order dated 31.07.2014. 5. It is the contention of Sri. Rakshit, learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner / tenant that legal heirs of deceased Sri. R.Narayana Rao would not get a right to prosecute, since tenancy right is not a heritable right and amended petition is not verified by the legal heirs of deceased Sri. R.Narayana Rao, who have since been brought on record and as such, revision petition is liable to be allowed. 6. Per contra, Sri. R.B. Sadashivappa, learned counsel appearing for respondent/landlord would support the order passed by trial Court. 7. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for parties and on perusal of records secured from trial Court, it would indicate that initially legal heirs of deceased Sri. R.Narayana Rao had filed an application under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC to come on record, which came to be dismissed by trial Court vide order dated 04.01.2014 and liberty was granted to file an application as per the provisions of Karnataka Rent Act, 1999. Accordingly, legal heirs of deceased petitioner filed an application under Section 51 of Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, read with Rule 30 and Order 22 Rule 3 CPC to come on record. Trial Court after considering the objections filed to said application by order dated 13.06.2014 allowed the applications and permitted the legal heirs of deceased petitioner to come on record and prosecute the case or in other words, it has held that right to sue survives to the legal heirs of deceased Sri. R.Narayana Rao. Trial Court also directed the legal heirs of deceased petitioner to file an amended petition, which undisputedly has been filed on 05.07.2014. 8. The records of trial Court would also indicate that deceased Sri. R.Narayana Rao. Trial Court also directed the legal heirs of deceased petitioner to file an amended petition, which undisputedly has been filed on 05.07.2014. 8. The records of trial Court would also indicate that deceased Sri. Narayana Rao had pleaded that he intends to make use of plaint schedule premises for putting up a sump to overcome the water scarcity problem faced by students, who are residing and studying in the second floor of plaint schedule premises and who are said to be boarders of Trust known and called as “Smt. Gowramma Ramarao Trust” and to overcome said difficulty that was being faced by the children, deceased Sri.Narayana Rao proposed to make use of plaint schedule premises to the benefit of Trust. It is also stated by him in the eviction petition that he intended to execute a gift deed in favour of said Trust insofar as plaint schedule premises is concerned. However, unfortunately during the pendency of said eviction petition he is said to have expired all of a sudden and as such, his children who also have since been nominated as Trustees to the said Trust in its meeting held on 30.09.2013, had sought leave of the trial Court to come on record to prosecute the claim made by their deceased father, who was also the Trustee of above said Trust. Hence, it cannot be said that right to sue did not survive to the legal heirs, who are also the Trustees of above said Trust. If deceased Sri.Narayana Rao has pleaded in eviction petition that he required petition schedule premises for his personal requirement or for his self occupation, then argument advanced by Sri.Rakshit, learned counsel for petitioner would have merited acceptance. However, in the instant case, records would disclose that it is not for the personal requirement for which eviction was sought for by deceased Sri.Narayana Rao and it is for the benefit of economically poor students who are residing in second floor of same building and for whom he wanted to provide drinking water, eviction petition had been filed in respect of plaint schedule premises. As such, it cannot be said that legal heirs of deceased Sri.Narayana Rao, who are also since been appointed as Trustees by the said Trust in its meeting held on 30.09.2013, are not entitled to prosecute the cause espoused by their father and it has to be held that right to sue survives to them and they are entitled to prosecute the eviction petition. As such, no infirmity can be found in the order passed by the trial Court. 9. Though in the normal course after an amendment takes place respondent would be entitled to file additional statement of objections and this Court would have permitted them to do so, in the instant case, such situation has not arisen at all to enable respondent to file additional statement of objections for two reasons; firstly, when the order passed by trial Court on 03.06.2011 allowing the application filed under Section 50 of Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, read with Rule 30 and Order 22 Rule 3 permitting the legal heirs of deceased Sri.Narayana Rao (Trustee of “Smt. Gowramma Ramarao Trust”) and said order had reached finality no such leave was sought for and; secondly, after trial Court rejected the application filed by respondent/tenant under Section 42(6)(c) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, which has been affirmed by this order, right to raise any plea in this regard by tenant, stands closed. Hence, nothing remains and question of granting any permission to file additional statement of objections in this regard does not arise. However, this does not prevent respondent from raising such defence, which is available to him to resist the petition under Section 27(2)(r), which is said to be already raised by filing detailed statement of objections to the main eviction petition itself and it would be needless to state that revision petitioner can pursue same to its logical end. Hence, I do not find any error committed by trial Court to exercise the revisional jurisdiction by this Court. 10. For reasons aforestated, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) Revision petitions are hereby dismissed. (ii) Orders dated 15.09.2014 and 31.07.2014 passed by Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore, are hereby affirmed. Hence, I do not find any error committed by trial Court to exercise the revisional jurisdiction by this Court. 10. For reasons aforestated, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) Revision petitions are hereby dismissed. (ii) Orders dated 15.09.2014 and 31.07.2014 passed by Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore, are hereby affirmed. (iii) Amount deposited by petitioner towards arrears of rent, before this Court is ordered to be released in favour of first respondent herein subject to respondents 2 and 3 herein filing an affidavit with their no objection for cheque being issued in favour of first respondent and on such affidavit being filed registry to issue cheque in the name of first respondent on proper identification. (iv) No order as to costs. (v) Registry is directed to retransmit the records to trial Court forthwith.