N.P. Shylaja and Others vs V. Keshavamurthy and Others

B.S. Patil, J.

This Revision Petition is filed under Section 46 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 (for short, ''the Act'') challenging the order of eviction passed on 16.08.2014 in H.R.C. No. 12/2013. Petitioners herein were respondents 1 to 4 in H.R.C. No. 12/2013 being the tenants in occupation of the petition schedule premises. Respondents herein are the landlords.

H.R.C. No. 12/2013 was filed under Section 27(2)(r) read with Section 5(1) of the Act by the respondents herein. It was urged by them that they were the absolute owners of the petition schedule property; the same was leased out by their mother late Smt. K.J.V. Jayalakshmi in favour of Sri Siddaveerappa, father of the petitioners herein under a registered Lease Deed dated 22.06.1977 for a period of 10 years commencing from 01.06.1977 on a monthly rent of Rs. 50/-, however, after the expiry of lease period, by efflux of time, petitioners herein continued to be in possession of the same with the consent of the mother of the respondents herein and continued to be tenants at sufferance. They further contended that the said continuation of lease was oral and in the due course of time, the monthly rent payable in respect of schedule property had been enhanced from Rs. 50/- to Rs. 250/-. They also pleaded that the schedule premises was required for their own use and occupation.

The petition was resisted by the petitioners herein. The bona fide requirement for own use was denied. They urged that title of the respondents herein over the petition premises itself was in dispute being the subject matter of proceedings in Regular First Appeals filed by certain Hanumanthappa and B.M. Byrappa and others. They also contended that mother of the respondents herein during her lifetime had agreed to sell a portion of the property and had received part of the consideration towards sale of the premises, in a sum of Rs. 7.5 lakhs. They urged that by suppressing all material facts, respondents herein had approached the Court seeking eviction. They also pointed out that earlier eviction petition had been filed by the mother of the respondents herein. After contest, the said petition came to be dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, HRRP No. 18/2011 had been filed and the same also came to be dismissed on 24.02.2011 on merits. In such circumstances, the present revision petition was not maintainable.

Both parties led evidence. The Court below, on consideration of the pleadings and evidence on record, has come to the conclusion that respondents herein had failed to make out any ground for eviction under Section 27(2)(r) of the Act, but had made out a case for passing an order of eviction under Section 5 of the Act. Accordingly, petition filed under Section 5(1) of the Act has been allowed directing the tenants -petitioners herein to handover vacant possession of the schedule premises within three months from the date of the order passed on 16.08.2014.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners strongly contends that the Court below has committed a serious error in passing the impugned order directing eviction under Section 5 of the Act, in the absence of necessary pleadings in that regard. He takes the Court through the pleadings and the evidence on record to submit that there is an admission on the part of the respondents that after the death of the original tenant, the present petitioners were continued as tenants by virtue of oral agreement and therefore, provisions of Section 5 have no application in such circumstances. He further points out that earlier eviction petition was filed seeking the premises for own use and occupation of the respondents and also for arrears of rent, but the Court below dismissed the plea of own use and occupation and the same has been confirmed by this Court. He, therefore, submits that looked from any angle, no case has been made out by the respondents herein and the impugned order passed is illegal.

Learned counsel for the respondents refuting these contentions takes me through the legal notice issued and the petition averments to emphasize that there is no admission with regard to any fresh lease entered into between the respondents and the legal representatives of the original tenant. On the other hand, he urges that the landlords have specifically contended in the eviction petition that petitioners herein have continued as tenants at sufferance after the expiry of the lease period. He points out that date of death of the original tenant was 23.01.2006 and the petition has been filed on 11.01.2013 after a period of five years and in terms of the provisions contained under Section 5 of the Act, nothing more is required to be established by the respondents than showing to the Court that 5 years had been lapsed since the death of the original tenant and therefore, the legal representatives of the original tenant in occupation of the premises were liable to be evicted. He has drawn the attention of the Court to the judgment in the case of Shahwar Basheer and Others v. Veena Mohan and Others - ILR 2003 KAR 4732 with regard to the purport and intent of the Legislature in enacting Section 5 of the Act.

Having heard the learned counsel for both parties and after careful perusal of the pleadings and the impugned order and other materials on record, question that falls for consideration is

"whether the Court below has committed any illegality in direction eviction of the revision petitioners under Section 5(1) of the Act."

It has to be noticed that eviction petition has been filed under Section 27(2)(r) read with Section 5(1) of the Act. In paragraphs 2 and 3 of the eviction petition, petitioner has stated as under:

"2. The petitioners are the absolute owners of the property mentioned in the schedule hereunder and herein after referred to as schedule property. The schedule property was leased out by petitioner late mother Smt. K.J. Jayalakshmi in favour of respondent''s late father Sri Sidhaveerappa under a registered lease deed dated 22.6.1977 for a period of 10 years commencing from 1.6.1977 and on a monthly rent of Rs. 50/-.

However, after the expiry of the lease by efflux of time, the respondents have continued to be in possession of the same with the consent of petitioner''s late mother and respondents are continued to be a tenant at sufferance. The said continuation of the lease was oral and was on a monthly lease. In due course of time, the monthly rent payable in respect of the schedule property was enhanced from the then Rs. 50/- to the present Rs. 250/- "

A reading of the eviction petition will make it clear that the schedule property is owned by the respondents herein who had moved the HRC Court. It was leased out to the father of the revision petitioners Sri Siddaveerappa under a registered lease deed for a period of 10 years from 01.06.1977. After the expiry of the lease period, by efflux of time, petitioners herein continued to be in possession of the schedule premises with the consent of the mother of the respondents herein as tenants at sufferance. Although it is stated in the next sentence that the said continuation of the lease was oral and was on monthly rent, it cannot be said that respondents had, by stating so, admitted that a fresh lease had been created in favour of the legal representatives of the original tenant and that they were continued as such after the expiry of the original lease period. This cannot be read into the eviction petition as is sought to be suggested by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners. On the other hand, the pleadings are that original lease was for a period of 10 years and that it was a registered lease. After the expiry of the lease period, by efflux of time, the tenants continued to be in possession of the same as tenants at sufferance. Having regard to the said pleadings, the contention of the counsel for the revision petitioners that the pleadings suggest admission on the part of the respondent - landlords regarding status of the revision petitioners as tenants by virtue of oral agreement between the tenants and the landlords cannot be accepted. The increase in rent spoken to was during the subsistence of the registered lease by the lessor and not by the legal representatives of the original owner.

It cannot be lost sight that the respondents have specifically invoked Section 5 of the Act seeking eviction of the tenants. Section 5 makes it very clear that in the event of death of a tenant, right of tenancy shall devolve for a period of 5 years from the date of his death to his successors in the order prescribed therein. Therefore, after the expiry of the period of 5 years from the date of death of the original tenant, his successors namely the revision petitioners can claim right to continue as tenants by inheriting the rights of the original tenant only for a period of 5 years from the date of death of the original tenant. It is not in dispute that on 23.01.2006, the original tenant Siddaveerappa died and the present petition had been instituted after 5 years on 11.01.2013. This has been brought on record in the course of evidence and indeed the Court below has also recorded findings in this regard. Therefore, the requirement of Section 5 of the Act have been fulfilled in the instant case and the right to continue in the tenanted premises by the revision petitioners had come to an end after the expiry of 5 years from 23.01.2006. Therefore, the Court below has rightly passed the impugned order directing eviction of the tenants under Section 5 of the Act. I do not find any illegality or irregularity muchless failure of justice in the findings recorded and the order passed. Hence, this revision petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.

Petitioners have been in possession of the premises right from the time of late Siddaveerappa, husband of the 1st petitioner and father of petitioners 2 to 4. Having regard to the fact that they would certainly require some more time to vacate the premises by searching for alternative accommodation, I am of the view that reasonable time deserves to be granted to vacate and handover vacant possession of the premises. Hence, six months time is granted to vacate the premises on condition that the petitioners shall continue to pay the rent agreed and file an affidavit that they will vacate the premises on or before 09.12.2015 without forcing the respondents to initiate any further proceedings to take possession. Affidavit shall be filed within two weeks.