Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 453 (KAR)

Sandhya K. R. v. S. Rukmini

2015-04-17

H.BILLAPPA

body2015
ORDER : H. Billappa, J. 1. This revision by the petitioners is directed against the order dated 30.1.2015 passed by the V Additional Small Causes Judge, Bengaluru, in HRC. No. 10016/2014. 2. By the impugned order, the Trial Court has rejected the application filed by the petitioners under section 43 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999. 3. Aggrieved by that, the petitioners have filed this revision petition. 4. Briefly stated the facts are: "The respondent has filed eviction petition against the petitioners under section 27(2)(a) of the Karnataka Rent Act 1999. At the stage of evidence, the petitioners have filed application under section 43 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 praying to stop further proceedings contending that there is no relationship of landlord and tenants between the petitioners and the respondent. The Trial Court by its order dated 30.1.2015 has rejected the application. Therefore, this revision petition." 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners have denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioners and the respondent. The respondent has not produced any documents like lease-deed or rent receipts to show the relationship of landlord and tenants between the petitioners and the respondent. Therefore, the Trial Court was not justified in rejecting the application. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. 6. As against this, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that though the petitioners have denied the relationship of landlord and tenants between the petitioners and the respondent, in their statement of objections the petitioners have admitted that they were the tenants under Smt. H.D. Meenakshi who is vendor's vendor of the respondent. When once the tenancy is admitted, the petitioners cannot invoke section 43 of the Rent Act. Further he submitted that in view section 109 of Transfer of Property Act, the attornment is not necessary. Therefore, the Trial Court was justified in rejecting the application and the impugned order does not call for interference. 7. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 8. I find considerable force in the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent. It is relevant to note, the respondent has filed eviction petition under section 27(2)(a) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999. 7. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 8. I find considerable force in the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent. It is relevant to note, the respondent has filed eviction petition under section 27(2)(a) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999. In their objection statement the petitioners have contended that they were not the tenants under the respondent, but they were tenants under Smt. H.D. Meenakshi who is none other than the vendor's vendor of the respondent. Smt. H.D. Meenakshi has sold the property in favour of Smt. Asha who in turn has sold the property in favour of the respondent. The petitioners have admitted that they were tenants under H.D. Meenakshi. This Court in SILVA UDDIN v. NAGARAJU reported in ILR 2004 Karnataka page 4782 has held, when once the ownership is transferred, the transferee becomes the owner of the premises. The tenant cannot dispute the right of the transferee landlord to maintain an eviction petition under Rent Act or to claim rent. Attornment by the tenant is unnecessary to confer validity to the transfer of the lessor's rights. Section 109 of the T.P. Act creates a statutory attornment. In Mr. David Paul v. Sri Karunakar M. Shetty & Another reported in 2003(3) KCCR page 2275, this Court has held, section 43 of the Rent Act cannot be relied upon by the tenant who does not deny his status but only denies that the person who has presented the eviction petition against him is not the landlord. 9. In the present case, the petitioners have admitted that they were tenants under Smt. H.D. Meenakshi who is vendor's vendor of the respondent. Therefore, the petitioners cannot invoke section 43 of the Act. The Trial Court has rightly rejected the application. Therefore, the impugned order does not call for interference. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed.