Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 560 (KAR)

Manjula Suresh Mehta v. Somavamsha Sahasrajuna

2015-06-02

B.S.PATIL

body2015
ORDER : B.S. PATIL, J. 1. This revision petition is filed under Section 18 of the Karnataka Small Causes Courts Act challenging the judgment and decree dated 19.03.2015 passed in S.C. No. 885/2014 directing the petitioner-defendant to deliver vacant possession of the suit schedule premises to the plaintiff-respondent herein within one month from the date of the judgment. The defendant has been directed to pay mesne profits to the plaintiff at the rate of Rs. 2,250/- per month from the date of suit till the premises was vacated and delivered to the plaintiff. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred by their rank in the Trial Court. Facts, briefly stated are that plaintiff instituted the suit for ejectment and for mesne profits contending inter-alia that defendant was the tenant of the shop premises bearing No. 6 situated in a portion of ground floor at K.V. Temple Street, Bengaluru, measuring East to West 14 ft and North to South, 9 feet on a rental of Rs. 2,250/- per month. A lease deed in this regard was entered into between the parties on 20.02.2006. 2. The plaintiff contended that the suit was instituted by the President of the Society contending inter-alia that the Society was a pious institute which was established by the elderly members of Somavamsha Kshatriya, a backward community, for the purpose of imparting education to the needy, poor and to uplift the downtrodden. He also contended that though the defendant was requested to vacate the premises for the bona fide use and occupation of the plaintiff and although she had agreed to vacate the same as and when alternative premises was secured by her, she did not honour her promise and went on postponing. This compelled the plaintiff to institute the instant suit. A legal notice was issued in this regard on 01.07.2010. It was duly acknowledged and thereafter the suit was filed. 3. The defendant resisted the suit contending inter-alia that the representative of the plaintiff had no authority to file the case. He denied that plaintiff was a charitable institution. The defendant further urged that the allegations made in the plaint that plaintiff needed the said premises for carrying on education activities of the plaintiff- Sangaha were not true. 4. 3. The defendant resisted the suit contending inter-alia that the representative of the plaintiff had no authority to file the case. He denied that plaintiff was a charitable institution. The defendant further urged that the allegations made in the plaint that plaintiff needed the said premises for carrying on education activities of the plaintiff- Sangaha were not true. 4. It is necessary to notice here that defendant had filed an application under Order 7, Rule 11 seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that suit was not maintainable as the measurement of the suit premises and the rent payable was such that eviction petition under the provisions of the Karnataka Rent Act ought to have been instituted. The said application filed by the defendant came to be rejected on the ground that as per the plaint averments, plaintiff-Sangha was a charitable institution, hence in terms of the provisions contained under Section 2(3) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, the Rent Act had no application to a charitable institution, therefore the suit was maintainable. This order has attained finality. 5. The Court below, based on the pleadings and evidence on record considered the question regarding the valid termination of the tenancy by the plaintiff and its entitlement for the relief sought in the plaint. It has also incidentally considered the question of maintainability of the suit because an argument was advanced in that regard contending that there was no material produced before the court to show that the plaintiff-Sangha was a charitable institution. The court below has also considered the other point urged during the course of arguments by the defendant that the suit itself was not maintainable at the instance of the President of the Society as he had no authority to file the suit in terms of the provisions contained under Section 15 of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the judgment under challenge. Both parties have taken me through the relevant records as the records pertaining to Courts below have been secured. 7. The contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that suit was not maintainable as it had not been established that plaintiff-Sangha was a charitable institution and the President of the plaintiff-Sangha was duly authorized to file the suit. 7. The contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that suit was not maintainable as it had not been established that plaintiff-Sangha was a charitable institution and the President of the plaintiff-Sangha was duly authorized to file the suit. It is also further contended that plaintiff-Sangha has leased two premises in favour of two tenants by receiving a huge advance and for higher rent after filing of the suit which disclosed that it had no bona fide requirement of the premise for utilizing them for the purpose of educational institution. 8. Counsel for the respondent has strongly supported the judgment under challenge. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for parties and on careful perusal of the entire materials on record, I find that the contentions urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding maintainability of the suit is not tenable in law. Ex. P1 is the rent agreement entered into between the parties. The President of the Sangha has executed the agreement in favour of the defendant-tenant representing the Sangha stating inter-alia that the Sangha was a charitable institution established for philanthropic purpose. The averments made in this agreement disclose the nature of the Sangha as a charitable institution and the authority of the President to represent the Sangha. In the written statement filed, no specific contention is raised stating that the President of the Sangha was not entitled to file the suit and to represent the Sangha. A vague averment has been made and no other material is produced by the defendant to support the contention raised regarding the lack of authority of the President to represent the Sangha. In the absence of any specific stand taken in the written statement urging that the byelaws of the Sangha did not authorize the President to institute the suit on behalf of the Sangha, the facts that the President has represented the Sangha while entering into the lease transaction with the defendant and the defendant has been the beneficiary of the said lease and has enjoyed the premises for nearly 22 years are sufficient to hold that the defendant cannot be permitted to contend that the plaintiff had failed to establish the authority of the President to represent the Sangha in the suit. As the defendant has taken the premises on lease from the plaintiff and the very President who has now filed the suit has represented the plaintiff-Sangha as its president while executing the agreement of lease, it is not open for the defendant to contend that the President of the Sangha could not have instituted the suit for ejectment. 10. Similarly, in view of the averment made in the lease deed that the lessor-Sangha is a charitable institution, defendant cannot be permitted to go back on the same to contend that the plaintiff ought to have independently proved that it was a charitable institution. Indeed there is no such defence taken in the written statement urging that plaintiff was not a charitable institution. It is for this reason the court below has rightly not called upon the plaintiff to establish the same. 11. The other contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the premises was not required for the bona-fide use and occupation of the plaintiff is of no consequence. At any rate the same is also not tenable in the facts and circumstances of the case. Mere fact that two shop premises had been let out by the plaintiff-Sangha would not show that the present shop premises are not required for the beneficial enjoyment of the educational institution. Indeed, it has been brought on record by the admission of the defendant DW1 herself that the shop premises in question have been kept under lock which meant that it was not being used by the defendant - tenant. It is for this reason the Court below has commented on the conduct of the defendant and has persuaded itself to direct the defendant to pay mesne profits amounting to Rs. 2,250/- per month. The Trial Court has recorded findings by properly appreciating the evidence on record. There is no error or illegality committed either on facts or in law warranting interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this court under Section 18 of the Small Causes Courts Act, 1964. Hence this revision petition being devoid of merits is dismissed.