Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 802 (KAR)

Riyaz Ahamed v. Lalitha Bai K.

2018-07-17

S.G.PANDIT

body2018
ORDER : S.G. Pandit, J. The petitioner is before this Court challenging the order dated 20-6-2018 passed on IA in HRC No. 72 of 2017 on the file of Court of Small Causes at Bangalore. 2. The petitioner is tenant in HRC No. 72 of 2017, which is filed under Sections 27(2)(a), (r), 31(1)(a) and (c) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999. In the said proceedings, the petitioner herein who is tenant has filed application under Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 seeking direction to the respondent herein, who is petitioner in HRC to produce electricity bills in support of property rented to Jayaveeran and the documents relating to property in order to prove the ownership/title in respect of property No. 369, 7th Cross, B.T.S. Main Road, Bengaluru. The Trial Court by its order dated 20-6-2018 has rejected the said application which is impugned in the present petition. 3. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the petition papers. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Trial Court has erred in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner herein, seeking direction to produce electricity bills and title documents in respect of property No. 369, 7th Cross, B.T.S. Main Road, Bengaluru, which is the suit scheduled property. She further submits that those documents are necessary for proper adjudication of the issue involved in the HRC petition. It is further contended that the jural relationship is denied and therefore in support of her contention she has sought for production of those documents. 5. The petitioner has already cross-examined P.W. 1 -the landlord and has also cross-examined Jayaveeran P.W. 2, who is also a tenant in a portion of the building. The Trial Court has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner/respondent observing that it is for the petitioner-landlord to prove the jural relationship that exists between him and respondent. If the petitioner-landlord fails to prove that the respondent is their tenant, he would not succeed in his petition. When the jural relationship is denied, it is for the landlord-petitioner to prove the same by adducing cogent evidence in the case on hand. It is for the petitioner to prove the case, therefore I am of the view that the Trial Court has rightly rejected the application and has not committed any error or illegality in dismissing the application. When the jural relationship is denied, it is for the landlord-petitioner to prove the same by adducing cogent evidence in the case on hand. It is for the petitioner to prove the case, therefore I am of the view that the Trial Court has rightly rejected the application and has not committed any error or illegality in dismissing the application. The petitioner has not made out any ground to interfere with order passed by the Trial Court. The HRRP is dismissed as devoid of merits.