Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1788 (KAR)

Mohammed Fazal Pathan v. Sharadadevi

2019-07-25

P.G.M.PATIL

body2019
ORDER : P.G.M. Patil, J. 1. Defendant being aggrieved by judgment and decree dated 23.07.2016 passed in RR. No. 8/2015 by the I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad sitting at Hubballi, confirming the judgment and decree dated 08.09.2015 passed in RCA No. 20/2008 on the file of the II Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and JMFC III, Hubballi has filed this revision petition. 2. The status of the parties is referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court as landlady and tenant. 3. The respondent herein Smt. Sharadadevi filed RCA. No. 20/2008 before the II Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and JMFC III, Hubballi for eviction of the revision petitioner - tenant from the petition schedule premises under Section 27 (2) (r) and Section 31(c) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 2000. 4. It is the case of the petitioner before the trial Court that she is the lawful and absolute owner/landlady of the residential old house built up with mud walls, black tiles bearing CTS. No. 3521 + 3901, Municipal house No. 20399, and CTS ward No. V situated at Diwatagi Oni, near Dr. Konnur Hospital, Old Hubli, Hubli. One Smt. Jinabi W/o Mohammed Fazal Pathan was the original tenant after her death, her husband Mohammad Fazal Pathan became the tenant and after his death his son by name Ayab Khan S/o Mohammed Fazal Pathan, the present respondent has continued the tenancy on monthly rent of Rs. 15/-. The monthly tenancy commences from 1st day of English Calendar month and ends in the last day of the same month. The petitioner is senior citizen, aged about 73 years. The respondent was irregular in payment of rent, and rents from July 2004 amounting to Rs. 705/- was due. The petition premises is unsafe and HDMC Authorities have given notices to both the parties on 31.01.2005 and 05.05.2007. Thus, she requested tenant to hand over vacant possession on the ground that she requires petition premises for reconstruction and thereafter, for her bona fide personal use and occupation, but in vain. Thereafter, she got issued demand notice dated 14.02.2008. The respondent tenant did not care for the notice. Thus, she was constrained to file the said petition for eviction of the respondent. 5. Thereafter, she got issued demand notice dated 14.02.2008. The respondent tenant did not care for the notice. Thus, she was constrained to file the said petition for eviction of the respondent. 5. In pursuance of the notice, the respondent appeared before the trial Court and filed his objections contending that the petition is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of parties. Apart from the respondent his family members are also residing therein. He has denied description of the petition property. He contended that the petition premises comes in CTS. No. 3521 and he admitted municipal number. It is also contended that the petitioner was only rent collector after the death of Smt. Parvatevva Ramadurga, the petitioner has not issued rent receipts and he is ready to pay the rents. Thus, he denied the petitioner to be the owner of petition premises. He also denied that the petition premises is unfit for human habitation and prayed for dismissal of the petition. 6. In support of the petition, the petitioner herself got examined as PW-1 and got marked 19 documents. The original respondent died during the pendency of the said petition and his son respondent No. 1(a) got examined as RW. 1 and got marked 26 documents as Exs. R. 1 to 26. 7. The trial Court after hearing both the parties allowed the petition and directed the respondent to evict and handover the possession of the petition premises to the petitioner within three months from the date of the order. 8. The tenant being aggrieved by the said order filed R.R. No. 8/2015 on the file of the I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad, sitting at Hubballi. The revisional Court secured the LCR, heard both the learned counsels appearing for the parties and passed the impugned order on 23.07.2016, thereby the rent revision petition filed under Section 46(2) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 was dismissed with costs. Thereby the order passed in RCA. No. 20/2008 was confirmed. 9. The respondent being aggrieved by the impugned order has filed this revision petition on the grounds that the judgment and decree passed by both the courts below are without jurisdiction and the same is illegal and contrary to law. The eviction order is erroneous and perverse, Section 31(c) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 (for short the Act) cannot be invoked. The eviction order is erroneous and perverse, Section 31(c) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 (for short the Act) cannot be invoked. The petitioner has not proved that she require petition premises for her bona fide purposes. The Courts below are wrong in holding that the petition premises is unsafe for human habitation and that the landlady desire for demolition of petition premises and put up new construction and the financial institutions are ready to give loan to her. 10. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent. 11. A short question which arises for consideration in this petition is as to whether the revision petitioner has made out that impugned order passed by the First Revisional Court and trial Court are illegal, perverse and against the material on record and law, as such liable to be set aside. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the jural relationship is not proved by the respondent and therefore, the petition itself is not maintainable. Further Section 27 (2)(r) and Section 31(c) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 2000 is not attracted in the present case. The respondent has also not proved her financial capacity to put up new construction and therefore, revision petition deserves to be allowed. 13. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that revision petitioner herein has admitted relationship of landlady and tenant before the trial Court and now, he cannot be permitted to contend that jural relationship is not proved. Further, the landlady being widow aged about 90 years is entitled for possession of the petition premises under Section 31(1)(a) of the Act. Learned counsel further, submitted that tenant has admitted in his cross examination that building is unsafe and it is in dilapidated condition. Section 27 (2)(r) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 provides that the premises let are required whether in the same form or after reconstruction or eviction of tenant sought on the ground of mandatory requirements to be satisfied and duty of court to ensure that they are duly satisfied before granting eviction. Section 31(c) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 provides that Right to recover immediate possession of premises to accrue to a widow; where the landlord is a person who is of the age of six-five years or more and the premises let out by him. 14. Section 31(c) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 provides that Right to recover immediate possession of premises to accrue to a widow; where the landlord is a person who is of the age of six-five years or more and the premises let out by him. 14. In the present case, the landlady who is aged about 90 years had sought for possession of the schedule premises for demolition and reconstruction of building, for her use. Therefore, above said provisions are attracted in this case. 15. Section 31(1)(a) of the Act provides that where the landlady is a widow and the premises let out by her, or by her husband, she is entitled to recover the possession for her own use in such case, if she applies to the court for recovery of immediate possession of the such premises and in such an event the court is obliged to pass the order of eviction of the tenant and to recover the immediate possession of the premises for the landlady. In the present case, both the requirements of Section 31(1) and (c) are fulfilled. 16. The trial Court has observed that the respondent tenant has clearly admitted in his cross examination that the petitioner is the landlady, he is staying in the petition premises as a tenant. He has further admitted that the petition schedule premises is built up with mud wall and having Mangalore tiles. He has further admitted in clear terms that now the premises is in a dilapidated condition as the premises was constructed nearly 80-90 years back. He has also admitted that the age of the petitioner landlady was about 75 to 80 years. Further, the photographs of the petition schedule premises shown to him were admitted and the trial Court has observed that the petition schedule premises is in a dilapidated condition and that HDMC Authorities have issued notice to the landlady for immediate demolition since, it is in unsafe condition. Therefore, the contention raised by the revision petitioner that the petitioner has not proved jural relationship and she has also not proved that the petition schedule premises is in unsafe condition and that she has not proved her financial capacity to reconstruct the building etc., cannot be accepted at all. Therefore, the contention raised by the revision petitioner that the petitioner has not proved jural relationship and she has also not proved that the petition schedule premises is in unsafe condition and that she has not proved her financial capacity to reconstruct the building etc., cannot be accepted at all. Under these circumstances, this court holds that the revision petitioner has failed to make out that the impugned order passed by the courts below are illegal, perverse or against the material on record and therefore, the revision petition being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, point for consideration is answered in the negative. In the result this court proceed to pass the following: ORDER The revision petition filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 is hereby dismissed with costs.