Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 908 (KAR)

V. Dhakashayani v. A. V. Ananthapadmanabha

2015-08-12

B.S.PATIL

body2015
ORDER : B.S. Patil, J. 1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 13-7-2015 passed by the Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru, in HRC No. 192 of 2014 rejecting the application filed by the respondent-tenant under Section 43(2)(b) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 (for short, 'the Act'). Respondent herein has filed a petition in HRC No. 192 of 2014 under Section 27(2)(r)and Section 29 of the Act, seeking eviction of revision petitioner. He has urged that the revision petitioner was the tenant under his vendor. After he purchased the property bearing Site No. 701 vide registered sale deed dated 7-12-2012, the revision petitioner has continued as tenant under him. He has issued a legal notice calling upon the tenant to vacate the premises expressing that he required the premises for his bona fide use and occupation. When the tenant did not vacate, he has filed the eviction petition. 2. The tenant resisted the petition contending inter alia that she has been in occupation in the house constructed in Site No. 701/A situated next to the property bearing Site No. 701 and in order to grab the property the landlord had made an attempt to file the above petition on the basis of false allegations. It was also contended that the landlord had already filed a suit for declaration and mandatory injunction in O.S. No. 5450 of 2013 against third parties contending that the said persons had encroached upon her property bearing Site No. 701 and constructed a building thereon. It was urged that when the petitioner had taken such a stand stating that he had purchased a vacant site and third parties had encroached, it was not open for him to contend that there was a structure in the property in which the revision petitioner was a tenant under his vendor. 3. An application was filed under Section 43(2)(b) of the Act to stay all further proceedings and direct the eviction petitioner to file a fresh suit before the Civil Court seeking declaration of his rights over the property. 4. Petitioner-landlord resisted the said application. He led his evidence, whereas respondent-tenant before the Court did not lead any evidence. 5. 3. An application was filed under Section 43(2)(b) of the Act to stay all further proceedings and direct the eviction petitioner to file a fresh suit before the Civil Court seeking declaration of his rights over the property. 4. Petitioner-landlord resisted the said application. He led his evidence, whereas respondent-tenant before the Court did not lead any evidence. 5. Based on the evidence on record, the Court below has dismissed the application holding that there was ample material to establish that the revision petitioner was a tenant under the vendor of the eviction petitioner and that he was in occupation of the residential shed in Site No. 701. Aggrieved by these findings and the order passed, this revision petitioner has been filed. I have heard the learned Counsel for, the petitioner. 6. On careful perusal of the entire materials on record including the order under challenge, I find that the Court below has placed considerable reliance on Ex. P. 1 which is the certified copy of the plaint filed by the revision petitioner-tenant in O.S. No. 2482 of 2011. This suit was filed against the vendor of the landlord. In this plaint, the tenant has specifically contended in paragraph 3 of the plaint that she was a tenant under the 1st defendant-vendor of the landlord based on an agreement dated 15-1-2001 and that she had paid advance of Rs. 5,000/- and was paying monthly rent of Rs. 150/-. When the revision petitioner herself has pleaded in the said plaint that she was the tenant under the vendor that too in respect of the property bearing Site No. 701 which is the subject-matter of HRC proceedings and which property has been subsequently purchased by the present landlord-respondent herein, the Court below has rightly come to the conclusion that the assertions made by the tenant that she was occupying the premises bearing Site No. 701/A could not be believed. This reasoning of the Court below is based on the admission made by the tenant in the plaint in O.S. No. 2482 of 2011 filed by her. She cannot resile from the same. More than that, she has not entered the witness-box to explain the same or to prove her assertions having filed the application for stoppage of the proceedings. Therefore, I do not find any illegality in the order passed by the Trial Court. Hence, this revision petition is dismissed.