Meena vs Jijabai

B. Veerappa, J.—This petition is filed by the petitioner - tenant challenging the order dated 4.2.2015 passed in HRC RP No. 13/2014 confirming the order dated 26.7.2014 passed on I.A. No. III in HRC No. 30/2012 rejecting the application filed under Section 43 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999.

Brief facts of the case are that the respondent - Smt. Jijabai alleged landlord filed HRC No. 30/2012 under the provisions of Section 27(a) and (r) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, for eviction against the petitioner urging that the petition premises is all piece and parcel of the building in R.S. No. 79/A + A (Part of Old R.S. No. 79/1B) situated at Vth Cross, Manchalay Nivas, Adarsh Nagar, Angol, Belgaum, originally belongs to one Shri Subhash Shankar Jadhav and he had appointed his brother Srikant Shankar Jadhav as his GPA Holder to deal and maintain the said premises. The said GPA Holder has sold the entire property in favour of the respondent under registered sale deed dated 7.7.2011, thereby being the owner of the property in question, she also stated that the present petitioner was inducted as tenant in respect of the premises by erstwhile owner through GPA holder Snkant Shankar Jadhav on monthly rental of Rs. 2,000/- and her ownership and tenancy of the petitioner was misused and the petitioner has admitted the jural relationship of the landlord and tenant in respect of the petition premises etc., therefore, sought for eviction. The petitioner who is the respondent in HRC No. 30/2012 filed statement of objections and denied the entire petition averments and also denied the very jural relationship between the landlord and tenant, which was said to have been in existence between the petitioner and respondent and the respondent-tenant also stated that Subhash Shankar Jadhav, was power of attorney holder and used to pay rents to the GPA holder and therefore sought for dismissal of the petition.

After completion of the evidence of the landlord/petitioner in HRC No. 30/2012 the present petitioner filed an application under Section 43 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 seeking to stay further proceedings in the petition i.e., in HRC No. 30/12. The same was resisted by the respondent.

After considering the entire material on record the learned Principal Civil Judge, JMFC dismissed the said I.A. holding that without having trial, the Court is not supposed to give its opinion regarding the relationship between the parties. Accordingly rejected I.A. III. The said order was questioned before the Presiding Officer,. FTC III at Belagavi, in HRC RP 13/2014, who after hearing both the parties has rejected the petition confirming the order passed by the learned Principal Civil Judge and JMFC at Belgaum, against the concurrent finding of fact, the present HRRP is filed.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis.

Sri Mrutyunjay Tata Bangi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that the order passed by both the Courts below is contrary to law and contrary to the provisions of Section 43 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, hence the impugned order cannot be sustained. Accordingly sought for setting aside the impugned order and also contended that the dispute in respect of the property is pending between the original owner and the alleged purchaser. Till the controversy is resolved in the original suit the respondent cannot claim as owner and therefore, there is no jural relationship between the landlord and the tenant etc.

Per contra Sri M.G. Naganuri, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has sought to justify the impugned orders passed by the Court below.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by both the parties and perused the entire material on record.

The learned Civil Judge while deciding I.A. 3 under Section 43 of the Rent Act has specifically recorded a finding that on going through the entire contentions taken by both the parties, it is clear that there is a suit pending before the IV Addl. Civil Judge in respect of the petition and the dispute is between the previous owner of the property and the present petitioner. It is important thing to note that the said suit for declaration in respect of the present petition premises is not whether the petitioner is the landlord and respondent is the tenant in the petition premises. While recording the said finding the learned Civil Judge also relied on the dictum of this Court in the case of Silva Uddin Vs. Nagaraju, wherein it is held that the landlord is the person, who is entitled to collect the rent in terms of lease as of right. In the said circumstances, the finding recorded that the attorney is tenant and the contention that collection of rents by the petitioner from the respondent and also relationship of landlord and tenant and also recorded that the respondent has not denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the previous owner and himself in respect of the petition premises. Moreover in the memorandum of understanding, which was said to be executed by the previous owner and the petitioner, was produced and the same is still pending adjudication. By virtue of the memorandum of understanding it is clear that there was an agreement between the previous owner in respect of the premises and the tenancy of the petitioner. The validity of the memorandum of understanding has to be decided by the competent Civil Court in the pending suit between the parties. It is not necessary that the landlord should be the owner of the petition premises, as such without having the trial, this Court is not supposed to give its opinion regarding the relationship between the parties. Accordingly he rejected the I.A. 3 filed by the tenant under Section 43 of the Karnataka Rent Act. The same has been confirmed by the learned Presiding Officer FTC-III at Belagavi in Revision Petition 13/2014 and specifically recorded a finding that after going through the impugned order and after considering the rival contentions and relying the decision referred to by the respondent, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that in view of the documents produced by the respondent, the further HRC proceedings cannot be stopped. Accordingly he dismissed the revision petition. When both the Courts concurrently held the relationship between the tenant and the landlord in the proceedings initiated, without deciding the jural relationship exercising power under Section 43 of the Karnataka Rent Act, the scope of revision is very limited, the order passed by the both the Courts below are based on the material facts placed on record. Such a finding of fact cannot be interfered with by exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of CPC.

In view of the same, the petitioner has not made out any case to interfere. Accordingly the revision petition is dismissed at the stage of admission.

Since the main matter is disposed of on merits the question of considering the I.A. 1/2015 does not arise.