Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 58 (KAR)

Veeresh v. Viraktamath Chikkerur

2015-01-08

A.S.BOPANNA

body2015
JUDGMENT :- 1. The petitioner herein is the defendant in O.S.No.266/2011. 2. The suit is filed by the respondent herein seeking for a judgment and decree for recovery of possession of the suit schedule property and for the damages to be determined and awarded to the plaintiff. 3. The plaintiff therein contends that the defendant is the tenant in respect of the suit schedule property. The defendant has filed a detailed written statement disputing the contentions put forth in the plaint. Apart from the other contentions, the defendant has also disputed the jural relationship of the landlord and the tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant. It is the case of the defendant that the plaintiff who has been removed by the Trust is not entitled to maintain the suit. It is the further case of the tenant/defendant that Sri. Basaveshwara Deva Trust Committee is the landlord in respect of the premises and as such the tenancy agreement has been entered into between the said committee and the defendant. It is contended that the rents are being paid to them and as such the plaintiff has no manner of right in respect of the property either to seek for possession or to claim damages in respect of the property. 4. In the pending suit, the plaintiff has filed an application under Section 151 of CPC seeking that the defendant be directed to deposit the monthly rent before the Court below. The defendant filed a memo seeking that the written statement filed by them be taken into consideration as objections to the said application. The application which is registered as I.A.No.1 was allowed by the Court below by order dated 29.04.2014. It is in that view, the petitioner herein who is the defendant is before this Court assailing the said order. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner by referring to the specific averments made in the written statement with regard to the dispute raised by the defendant with regard to the right of the plaintiff to maintain the suit would contend that when such a serious dispute has been raised, until the said issue is considered by the Court below there cannot be a direction to the defendant to deposit the rent in Court. It is the contention of the learned counsel that when the defendant is paying rents to Sri. It is the contention of the learned counsel that when the defendant is paying rents to Sri. Basaveshwara Deva Trust Committee, the deposit of the rent once over again in the Court would not arise. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent- plaintiff would however seek to contend that the dispute as raised with regard to the ownership is not sustainable. When the plaintiff is in charge of the affairs of the property, the defendant who is admittedly in possession of such premises belonging to the plaintiff, the rent should be paid to the plaintiff and therefore, the Court below was justified. 7. In the light of the contentions, I have perused the order impugned herein. 8. The Court below in fact has referred to the said contentions, which has been put forth by the defendant raising a dispute with regard to the jural relationship of landlord and tenant. The contention of by the defendant that the Viraktamath has been merged into Sri. Basaveshwara Deva Trust Committee or not, is a matter of evidence has been noticed by the Court below. Having taken note of the said position, the Court below has also kept in view that at this juncture, the issue for consideration is with regard to the rent that is payable. In that view, the Court was of the opinion that it would be appropriate for the defendant to deposit the monthly rent in Court, which would serve the interest of the parties. 9. In the background of the conclusion reached by the Court below, though the defendant has raised the contention with regard to the jural relationship and it is further contended that the rents are being paid to the Sri.Basaveshwara Deva Trust Committee, the defendant in any event would have to pay the rent either to the plaintiff or to Sri.Basaveshwara Deva Trust Committee and it is for them to resolve their inter-se disputes. If this aspect is kept in view, presently the plaintiff is before this Court claming ownership right in respect of the property and also seeking possession of the property from the defendant and in the said proceedings, since the damages by way of monthly rent has been sought, the present interlocutory order with regard to the deposit of rent during pendency of the suit is sought. In the nature of the proceedings in the instant suit, the inter-se right between the plaintiff and Sri.Basaveshwara Deva Trust Committee in any event cannot be decided at present. At the time of hearing, it is submitted that there are certain other suits between the plaintiff herein and Sri.Basaveshwara Deva Trust Committee relating to the properties. This in itself would indicate that ultimately the defendant herein would have to pay the rent to the appropriate landlord who establishes the right in respect of the property which is in the occupation of the defendant. 10. In the instant suit, since the contention has been raised with regard to the jural relationship, the Court below in any event would have to advert to the said issue and a conclusion would have to be reached in the matter. In the meanwhile, if the said Sri.Basaveshwara Deva Trust Committee seeks to implead to the present suit itself, the said issue in any event would be decided in their presence or otherwise based on the contentions taken by the defendant disputing the right of the plaintiff, the said issue will be decided. In that view, if the defendant continues to pay the rent to Sri.Basaveshwara Deva Trust Committee and if ultimately in the instant suit, either in the presence of the said committee or otherwise, if it is held that the plaintiff is the landlord in respect of the property and they are entitled to receive the rent, the defendant even if they have paid the rent to Sri.Basaveshwara Deva Trust Committee would have to pay the damages as would be determined by the Court below to the plaintiff. 11. If that aspect of the matter is kept in view, the ultimate conclusion reached by the Court below directing the defendant to deposit the monthly rent in Court would be justified. However, it is made clear that the Court below will not permit the plaintiff to withdraw the amount deposited by the defendant in Court until the issue relating to jural relationship is decided either as a preliminary issue or along with the other issues. However, it is made clear that the Court below will not permit the plaintiff to withdraw the amount deposited by the defendant in Court until the issue relating to jural relationship is decided either as a preliminary issue or along with the other issues. Needless to mention that the confirmation of the order passed by the Court below, by this order or the deposit of rent made to the Court below would not take away the right of Sri.Basaveshwara Deva Trust Committee, but they would have an independent right to put forth their contentions before the Court below, if they seek to implead themselves or file independent suit. In other words, the observations made herein in the absence of Sri.Basaveshwara Deva Trust Committee is limited only to the inter-se issue relating to the deposit of rent amongst the parties herein and all other questions are left open to be agitated between the parties in accordance with law. 12. The Court below has directed that the rent be deposited from one month of the date of passing of the order. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit during the pendency of the instant petition, the petitioner continued to pay the rent to Basaveshwar Deva Trust committee and as such if the deposit of rent is up held from the date of the order passed by the court below, he would be put to prejudice. Hence, taking note of the said submission, it is made clear that the petitioner shall deposit the rent as directed by the court below but with effect from the month of February 2015 onwards. 13. With the above observations and clarifications to the order impugned herein, the writ petition stands disposed of.