Manohar Vasudev Pangam and Others vs Jeendatta and Others

K.N. Phaneendra, J.—The present revision is filed calling in question the judgment passed in RRP No. 10/2005 on the file of the District and Sessions Judge, Uttara Kannada, Karwar, dated 16.12.2011 and also the judgment passed in HRC No. 21/1992 dated 30.07.2005 on the file of the civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Karwar.

For the purpose of easy understanding and to avoid confusion, I would like to retain the ranks of the parties as per their ranking before the original court.

The brief factual matrix of the case are that,-

"The petitioner- Jinadatta Erayya Shetty has filed a petition in HRC No. 21/1992 against the respondents therein under Section 21(1)(a) & (h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act in respect of the property bearing CMC No. 1235 at Maruti Galli, Karwar, which is situated in the land bearing Sy. No. 1366-A/5 (N.A.) to the extent of one gunta of Baad III Village consisting of three rooms facing north, which was let out to the respondent No. 1 on the monthly rent of Rs. 30/-."

The petitioner has stated that before he became the owner of the said property, he was a tenant in respect of the Western Portion of the tenement of the petition building bearing CMC No. 1235 at Maruti Galli, Karwar, under one Sri. S.A. Sabnis and after his death his wife, Smt. Prema Srikrishna Sabnis became the owner of the petition schedule land and building and she intended to dispose of the land along with the building and this petitioner purchased the said property of one gunta along with the building thereof under a registered sale deed dated 14.09.1989 and he has been in possession and enjoyment of the said property as owner and thereby the respondents became the tenants under the petitioner. The petitioner also relied upon the said sale deed, in which it is categorically stated that the respondent did not pay rentals of the petition premises to the previous landlord Smt. Prema S. Sabnis and as she could not take any legal action for recovery of arrears of rentals against the respondents on account of her personal and domestic problems, she authorised the petitioner to recover the rentals from the respondent. Thereafter, petitioner issued a legal notice to Respondent No. 1 dated 31.07.1991 calling upon him to pay a sum of Rs. 2,880/- towards the rent within two months. But in spite of service of notice, the respondents have not complied with the notice. Therefore, the petitioner filed a petition for recovery of arrears rentals and also pleading that he required the premises for his personal occupation stating various reasons under Section 21(1)(a) and (h) of the Act, wherein he has narrated the facts as to how he requires the premises for his personal use and occupation.

The respondents appeared before the court and contested the proceedings and disputed the ownership of the petitioner over petition schedule property by the creating the ownership over some other person and denying that the S.A. Sabnis and his wife-Prema Srikrishna Sabnis were also not the owners of the petition schedule premises at any time. Further the respondents have also denied the relationship of tenants and landlord between them and petitioner-Jinadatta Erayya Shetty and thereby they created ownership on some other person and they specifically taken-up the contention that the earlier alleged owner S.A. Sabnis or his wife Prema Srikrishna Sabnis had no right, title or interest over the petition schedule property and as such, the petitioner also does not get any right, title and interest over the property. Further, the respondents had also taken-up the contention that the petitioner does not require the premises for his personal use and occupation, and they are not liable to pay any amount towards rentals to the petitioner.

On the basis of the above said rival contentions of the parties, the original court has framed certain points for consideration, which are as under:--

"i) Whether the petition premises is required for the bonafide and reasonable use and occupation of the petitioner and his family members?

ii) Whether the petitioner proves that he is the landlord of the petition premises and respondent is tenant under him in respect of the petition premises?

iii) Whether the respondent has to be evicted from the petition premises?"

The trial Court after considering the evidence of the petitioner, who was examined as PW.1 and marked Exs. P1 to P5 and also considering the evidence of RW.1, has answered the points in the affirmative and passed order allowing the petition vide order dated 30.06.2005 filed under Section 21(1)(a)&(h) and directed the respondents to vacate and handover the vacant possession of the petition property to the petitioner within 90 days from the date of its order.

The said order was called in question in the Rent Revision Petition No. 10/2005 before the District and Sessions Judge, Uttara Kannada, Karwar. After hearing the respective parties, the revisional Court has also framed the following points for consideration:--

"i) Whether the petitioner proves that he is the landlord and he is thus entitled to maintain eviction petition?

ii) Whether the petitioner has made-out a case for grant of order of eviction?

iii) Whether the respondent has got any right to continue in the premises any longer?

iv) Whether the application filed by the respondent under Section 43 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 needs to be allowed?"

After hearing the parties, the Revisional court answered points- 1 & 2 in the affirmative and points-3 & 4 in the negative and ultimately, the court has dismissed the revision petition as meritless by confirming the judgment passed by the trial court.

As could be seen from the order of the trial Court as well as the revisional Court, on facts, both the courts have categorically held that the petitioner is the purchaser of the property and he has acquired right, title and interest over the petition schedule property and as such, he can maintain the petition against the respondents and on the other hand, the respondents have not proved the defence taken-up by them creating title on some other person and on the other hand, the petitioner has proved that S.A. Sabnis was the owner of the petition schedule property and after his death his wife Smt. Prema Srikrishna Sabnis became the owner of the property and she executed the registered sale deed on 14.09.1989 in the name of petitioner. The said factual aspects recorded by the trial Court are based on both oral and documentary evidence.

Unless there is any illegality committed by the courts below, this court cannot interfere with the factual matrix recorded by the trial court as well as the revisional court. Further added to that, the learned Counsel has brought to my notice that the respondents have also filed a suit questioning the title of the petitioner over the petition schedule property in O.S. No. 8/1994 on the file of the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Karwar and the said suit was dismissed, against which they have also filed R.A. No. 34/2005 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Karwar. The Rent Revision Court viz., the District Judge, Karwar has also mentioned these facts in its order, wherein it is categorically observed that the said appeal in RA No. 34/2005 was also withdrawn from the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Karwar and the same was taken up by the District Judge, Karwar himself, in order to avoid conflicting judgments to be rendered by different courts. The District Judge also disposed of the said appeal on the same day on which day the rent revision petition was disposed of. This fact clearly goes to show that, even on the civil side the respondents have failed to establish the factum that the petitioner was not the owner of the petition schedule property and he has no right, title and interest over the property in order to maintain HRC petition against the respondents.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner before this court submitted that he does not know whether the petitioner has preferred any RSA before this Court challenging the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 8/1994, which is confirmed in R.A. No. 34/2005. Even assuming that any RSA is filed and pending before this Court, in any way, it would not be an impediment to dispose of HRC petition as well as Rent Revision Petition by the trial Court and the revisional Court. The judgment passed in the HRC petition and Rent Revision Court are tentative in nature and ultimately the rights of the parties are subject to the decision of the civil court. Therefore, when both the courts have categorically held on the factual matrix that the petitioner is the owner and he is entitled to maintain HRC petition against the respondents and when it is shown to the Court that the respondents were tenants under the previous owner and subsequently the petitioner purchased the petition property, it goes without saying that the petitioner is entitled for the relief as granted by the HRC court as well as the Revisional Court. When the finding given by both the courts becomes uncontroverted, unless any illegality or perversity in the appreciation of the evidence is shown to the court, this court cannot interfere with such reasoned orders passed by the trial court and the revisional Court. However, it is made clear that whatever may be the orders passed by both HRC Court and Revisional Court, the same is subject to the ultimate result by the Civil Court.

With the above observations, I am of the opinion that the revision petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. However, the petitioners are granted six months time from today to deliver the vacant possession of the premises to the respondents herein. No further time will be extended for any reasons.