A.N. Ramaiah and Others vs M. Abraham Ashirvadam

B.S. Patil, J—This revision petition is filed under Section 18 of the Karnataka Small Causes Court Act challenging the judgment and decree dated 08.12.2014 passed directing ejectment of the revision petitioners from the suit schedule premises.

The undisputed facts that emerge from the case on hand by perusal of the pleadings and the judgment under challenge are that revision petitioner No. 1 was put in possession of the property as tenant by the father of plaintiff/respondent herein one Maharaja Nadar, way back in the year 1981. Revision Petitioner/defendant No. 1 was paying rent for the occupation of the premises to the father of the plaintiff and upon his death to the plaintiff till 2005. In 2005 revision petitioner received a legal notice from one Hari Krishna who asserted his ownership over the property by virtue of judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 7313/2001. By the said legal notice, Hari Krishna called upon defendant No. 1 to vacate the premises as he was the absolute owner.

Revision Petitioners who are husband and wife claim to have made verifications with regard to the title and ownership of the said Hari Krishna and found from the revenue records that suit property was standing in the name of Hari Krishna in the revenue records. Thereafter, they issued a legal notice dated 02.01.2005 as per Ex. D5 calling upon the plaintiff to make his stand clear regarding his absolute title over the suit property. Revision Petitioners did not receive any reply. Therefore, having been satisfied of the title and ownership of said Hari Krishna, revision petitioners purchased the suit property vide Sale Deed dated 01.07.2006 from the said Hari Krishna. They, thus, asserted their right and title over the property.

It is further contended by the revision petitioners in their written statement filed that they had filed O.S. No. 6449/2007 against the Corporation (BBMP) and the present plaintiff seeking change of khatha and for an order of permanent injunction and the said suit was decreed granting an order of permanent injunction against the plaintiff while dismissing the same as regards the relief of transfer of khatha. Based on these pleadings, the Trial Court proceeded to frame the following issues:--

"i) Whether the plaintiff proves jural relationship of landlord and tenant between himself and the defendant as contended?

ii) Whether the plaintiff proves that he has legally terminated the tenancy of the defendant as provided under law?

iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief sought?

iv) What order?"

Plaintiff - respondent herein examined himself as P.W. 1 and produced and marked Exs. P1 to P25. Defendant No. 1 examined himself as D.W. 1 and Exs. D1 to D12 were produced and marked. The Trial Court, on appreciation of the evidence on record, both oral and documentary, has come to the conclusion that as per Ex. P1 - certified copy of the registered Sale Deed, father of the plaintiff had purchased 20 guntas of land in Sy. No. 45/3 of Saneguruvanahalli, Yeshwanthpur Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, from one D.P. Samuel Nadar, S/o. David Nadar, on 16.01.1980. Khatha Certificate produced at Ex. P4 revealed that khatha was transferred in the name of the plaintiff and he was paying taxes in respect of schedule property. The Court below has further found from Ex. P6 - Statement of Account extract pertaining to the Bank Account of the plaintiff maintained in the Corporation Bank that plaintiffs account was credited with certain sums of money by Vani Bar and Restaurant run by defendant No. 1 in the suit premises by issuing cheques and the said amount reflected receipt of rent for the occupation of the premises by defendant No. 1. The Trial Court has also placed reliance on Ex. P20 - certified copy of deposition of P.W. 1 in O.S. No. 6449/2007 (defendant No. 1 in the present case), wherein during the course of cross-examination, he has admitted that he had taken the suit schedule property on rent from the father of defendant No. 3 (father of the plaintiff in the present case) on monthly rent of Rs. 400/- during the year 1980 and that after his death, tenancy was continued by paying rent to defendant No. 3 (plaintiff herein). He has also admitted in his deposition that he had paid rent up to 2005 to defendant No. 3 (plaintiff herein).

On the strength of the pleadings and the above mentioned evidence on record, the Trial Court has come to the conclusion that revision petitioner - defendant No. 1 was in possession of the property as a tenant on a monthly rent first under the father of the plaintiff and after his death, under the plaintiff. The Trial Court has thus come to the conclusion that jural relationship of landlord and tenant stood established.

Contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioners is that although defendants/revision petitioners had admitted their tenancy under the father of the plaintiff and thereafter, under the plaintiff, subsequent verification made by the defendants disclosed that plaintiff was not the owner of the property and that it was one Hari Krishna who was the absolute owner of the property and therefore, the petitioners purchased the property form Hari Krishna and thereafter, defendant No. 1 became the absolute owner. He, therefore, contends that as defendant No. 1 has set up his own title over the property, the Court below had no jurisdiction to try the suit. He has placed reliance on the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Abdul Wajid Vs. A.S. Onkarappa, (2011) ILR (Kar) 229 : (2011) 4 KarLJ 414 : (2011) 2 KCCR 147 SN . It is his further submission that before purchasing the property, defendants had issued legal notice and had verified the decree passed by the Civil Court in O.S. No. 7313/2001 and the revenue records.

Counsel for the respondent - plaintiff has strongly refuted these contentions and has urged that earlier a regular suit had been filed before the City Civil Court by the plaintiff herein seeking possession of the property from the defendants. The said suit was filed in O.S. No. 537/2008 and the same came to be transferred to Small Causes Court on the ground that it was the Small Cause Court which had jurisdiction to try the suit; thereafter, proceeding was numbered as S.C. No. 2216/2011. It is urged by him that revision petitioners were estopped from taking up a contention denying the title of the landlord having admitted the fact that they were inducted as tenant by the very landlord.

Upon hearing the learned counsel for both parties and on careful perusal of the materials on record, I find that defendant - revision petitioners have admitted the fact that they have been inducted into the suit premises as tenants by the father of the present plaintiff. They have clearly admitted the fact that they were paying rents to the father of the present plaintiff and upon his demise to the plaintiff till the year 2005. It is also relevant to notice that indeed plaintiff herein had filed O.S. No. 537/2008 before the City Civil Court and the said suit was transferred during the year 2011 to the Small Causes Court and it is thereafter, the Small Causes Court has tried this case based on the pleadings and the admitted factual position. Mere fact that the defendants have ventured to purchase the very same property from a third party by name Harikrishna on the strength of judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 7313/2001 to which neither the plaintiff, nor the defendants herein are parties, it cannot be said that jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and defendants ceased.

The tenancy having been admitted and its termination having been effected by issuing legal notice in terms of the provisions contained under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, the Court below was right and justified in holding that plaintiff was entitled for a decree of ejectment against defendant - revision petitioners.

O.S. No. 6449/2007 filed by the present defendants against the Corporation (BBMP) seeking change of khatha in the name of defendants by virtue of the Sale Deed has been dismissed. However, an injunction has been granted against the present plaintiff not to disturb the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit premises by the defendants herein without due process of law. This will not, in any manner, further the case of the defendants, as admittedly they are in possession of the property and they cannot be dispossessed without due process of law.

Facts in the present case as adverted to above clearly disclose that defendants have admitted their induction into the premises by the father of the plaintiff as tenant. They have admitted payment of rental to the landlord/father of the plaintiff and subsequently, on his demise to the plaintiff and therefore, defendants cannot be permitted to take up shelter under the observations made in a totally different context in the judgment rendered in O.S. No. 6449/2007.

Hence, this revision petition being devoid of merit is dismissed. Revision Petitioners are granted six months time to vacate the premises. They shall voluntarily vacate the premises and handover possession to the plaintiff - respondent herein on or before 21.03.2016 without seeking any further extension of time and without forcing him to initiate execution proceedings. They shall pay the arrears of rent and agreed monthly rental periodically without committing any default.