Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 883 (KAR)

Muralidar Raju B. R. v. Rajashekara Raju

2015-08-07

B.S.PATIL

body2015
ORDER : B.S. Patil, J. - This revision petition is filed under Section 46 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 (for short, 'the Act') challenging the order dated 21-6-2013 passed in Execution Case No. 1169 of 2013 thereby dismissing the application filed by the objector under Order 21, Rules 29 and 97 of Civil Procedure Code. 2. Respondents 1 and 2 herein filed H.R.C. No. 267 of 2011 seeking eviction of the 3rd respondent-Sri Pradeep invoking the provisions of Section 27(2)(a) and 27(2)(r) of the Act. Indeed, in this petition, revision petitioner herein filed an application seeking to be impleaded as party respondent contending inter alia that there was no such tenant by name Pradeep in the petition schedule premises and that it was he who was in occupation of the premises. This application was rejected. H.R.R.P. No. 26 of 2013 was filed against the said order before this Court. The said petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 27-3-2015. Eventually, the execution petition was allowed by passing an order dated 8-11-2012. 3. The decree-holder filed execution petition seeking delivery of vacant possession of the premises. In the said proceeding, the revision petitioner has appeared as objector and has filed an application asserting his right that he has been in possession of the property in his own right. 4. Incidentally, it transpires that decree-holder 1-Rajashekara Raju is the father of the objector. The objector contended that there was no person by name Pradeep as tenant; being the son of decree-holder 1 and step son of decree-holder 2, he was in occupation of the premises; there is a civil suit instituted by the objector; pending adjudication wherein, the gift deed executed by decree-holder 1 in favour of decree-holder 2 has been challenged and that in the guise of executing the decree, the decree-holders were trying to dispossess the objector. 5. This application was resisted by the decree-holders contending inter alia that a similar grievance made by filing an application under Order 1, Rule 10 of CPC in HRC No. 267 of 2011 had been rejected and that the objector has come up with a false and baseless assertion; indeed, he was himself a witness to the rent agreement between the decree-holders and judgment-debtor-Pradeep. They relied on the notice and tax assessment issued by the BBMP to contend that there were two portions in the petition schedule premises and one portion was let out to the judgment-debtor and another portion was in occupation by the objector. They denied that the applicant was either landlord or tenant in respect of the petition schedule premises. 6. The Court below recorded evidence of the parties and has passed the order dismissing the application filed by the objector. It has held that the premises in question was let out in favour of Pradeep and he was in occupation of the same as was evident from Ex. D. 5-rent deed to which the objector was a signatory as a witness. It has further found that as the objector had failed to examine the tenant by name Pradeep, his contention that he was in occupation of the entire premises could not be believed. The Court below has also made reference to the order passed rejecting objector's application to come on record in the HRC proceedings. It has referred to the decisions on the point to support its conclusion. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has invited the attention of the Court to the cross-examination of the decree-holder to contend that while he has stated that the total extent of the petition schedule premises was 1200 sq. ft., such measurement was not mentioned in the petition schedule premises nor the petition schedule property was described furnishing any boundaries. He has further asserted that the decree-holder has admitted in the cross-examination that objector had filed a suit against decree-holder 1 claiming that the transfer of petition premises in favour of decree-holder 2 was not legal and that an injunction order had been obtained by the objector in the said suit. He also points that the rent agreement-Ex. P. 5 does not contain any description of the property and therefore, no reliance could have been placed on the said document by the Court below. He also points out that the said document had been denied as concocted document and the Court below could not have proceeded on the basis that the signature of the objector on the said document was not denied. 8. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent has supported the order passed. He also points out that the said document had been denied as concocted document and the Court below could not have proceeded on the basis that the signature of the objector on the said document was not denied. 8. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent has supported the order passed. He has invited the attention of the Court to the affidavit filed in support of the application seeking impleadment of the objector in the HRC proceeding which is placed for perusal of the Court along with objections filed. He has also placed reliance on the cross-examination of the objector, wherein he has stated that other tenants were in occupation of different portion of the premises. He also invites the attention of the Court to Ex. D.3-BBMP notice issued to show that there are two portions in the petition schedule premises and that these two portions were separately assessed as per Ex. R. 10 for the purpose of collecting tax. It is thus contended by him that the revision petitioner has come up with a false and baseless claim while raising the objections. 9. Having heard the learned Counsel for both parties, the only point that arises for consideration in this case is: Whether the Court below has committed any illegality in passing the impugned order? 10. Affidavit filed by the objector in HRC No. 267 of 2011 on 22-8-2012 in support of his application to come on record as an additional respondent makes it clear at paragraph 4 that there was a tenant by name Pradeep and he vacated the premises during September 2011. It is noteworthy that the eviction proceeding has been initiated on 11-11-2011. The affidavit filed by the objector is in the month of August 2012 i.e., on 22-8-2012. Admission made by him in the affidavit would clearly go to show that he was a tenant in occupation of a portion of the premises. In the cross-examination of the objector also, he has admitted that a portion of the premises was in occupation of other tenant and in another portion he was in occupation. Ex. D. 2-BBMP notice describes the property in question as a residential building consisting of two portions and in respect of one portion on rental basis, tax has been fixed at Rs.6,000/-. Similarly Ex. Ex. D. 2-BBMP notice describes the property in question as a residential building consisting of two portions and in respect of one portion on rental basis, tax has been fixed at Rs.6,000/-. Similarly Ex. D. 3 issued under Section 117 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 discloses that a portion of 350 sq. ft. of the property has been shown as rented out and another portion of 350 sq. ft. has been shown as in self occupation out of the total extent of 700 sq. ft. 11. It is thus clear from these documents that there are two portions in the petition premises and Pradeep was in occupation of one portion as a tenant and another portion has been in occupation of the objector. Execution proceeding is in respect of the portion where tenant Pradeep was in occupation. Indeed, as rightly held by the Court below by referring to Ex. D. 5-the objector is signatory as a witness to the rent agreement between the decree-holder 1 and the said Pradeep. Though this document has been denied as concocted, the Court below has rightly referred to the signature found on the said document and has come to the conclusion by comparing with the other admitted signatures that it was the signature of the objector. The objector has not given any plausible explanation to accept his version that the said document was a concocted document. No material is produced to support his contention. In such circumstances and also in the light of the dismissal of his petition filed earlier seeking his impleadment in the HRC proceeding, am of the view that there is no illegality committed by the Court below in rejecting the application filed by the objector. 12. This revision petition, therefore, being devoid of merits is dismissed.