Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 594 (KAR)

G. M. MALIK v. AMEENA BEE

2014-06-19

H.G.RAMESH

body2014
ORDER Heard. This petition is by the landlords challenging the order passed by the XV Addl. Small Causes Judge, Mayohall Unit, Bangalore in HRC No.10132/2003 on I.A. No. II dated 21.12.2006. 2. An application I.A. No. II was filed by the respondent-tenant under Section 43 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 to stop all further proceedings and direct the petitioners-landlords to approach a competent Court for declaration of rights. Objections were filed by the petitioners to the same. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the petitioners are the absolute owners of the petition schedule property. The petitioner No.1 is the rent collector and he is the purchaser of the property. He also submits that the respondent has not paid the rent from January 1995. 4. It is contended by learned counsel for the respondent that the petitioner No.1 is only a rent collector and he is not the purchaser of the property. 5. It appears that the trial Court has not gone into the merits of the case on the ground that the HRC court has no jurisdiction to decide the ownership and title between the petitioners and the respondent. When the respondent herself has admitted the petitioner No.1 is a rent collector and when she has paid rent to the petitioners for some time, suddenly an application is filed by the respondent-tenant under Section 43 of Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 to stop all further proceedings. The trial Court held that there is serious dispute regarding the ownership and title of the southern side of the petition schedule premises and the genuine existence of the relationship of landlord and the tenant. Hence, the trial court ordered to stop proceedings. What is to be noticed is that there is relationship between the petitioners and respondent as landlord and tenant and the fact that the petitioner No.1 is a rent collector is itself sufficient to maintain a petition atleast under Section 27A of the Rent Act, 1999. Even, there is document to demonstrate that the petitioners are the purchasers of the property from the erstwhile owner, that itself is sufficient to hold that there exists relationship of a landlord and tenant. In view of this, stopping of proceedings in HRC No.10132/2003 under Section 43 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 is totally against settled principles. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set-aside. 6. In view of this, stopping of proceedings in HRC No.10132/2003 under Section 43 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 is totally against settled principles. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set-aside. 6. Accordingly, petition is allowed. Impunged order dated 21st December 2006 in HRC No.10132/2003 on I.A. No. II is quashed. It is for the trial court to proceed further in accordance with law at the earliest. Office is directed to send back the records.