AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Jawad Rahim
Tenant is in revision u/s 18 of the Small Causes Act, questioning the Judgment and decree in S.C. No. 406/2005 on the file of Judge, Small Causes Court, SCCH-7, Bangalore.
Heard learned counsel on both sides.
One K. Ashwathanarayana Rao, filed a suit to evict K. Shankar Rao, the petitioner herein, from the premises bearing No. 42/E, 5th Cross, 7th Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore, on the premise that he (plaintiff) is the owner of the property in question and the defendant was the Tenant on monthly rent of Rs. 1,500/-. He was a chronic defaulter in payment of rent and was due heavy amount which he failed to pay on demand made several times. The plaintiff also averred that by notice dated 02-03-2005 tenancy was terminated and petitioner / defendant was directed to vacate the premises. It was also averred that premises is required for own use and occupation.
Petitioner herein resisted the suit denying jural relationship of Landlord and Tenant. He denied plaintiff is the owner of the property in question and proceeded further to set up title in himself. In this regard he averred that he has been in possession of the premises from 1989 running manufacturing unit by installing lathe and other machines, the plaintiff was stranger and hence he did not feel worth replying the notice issued.
In view of specific denial of jural relationship the learned Judge framed relevant issues and placed burden on the plaintiff to establish the relationship.
The respondent - plaintiff died during pendency of proceedings and his wife - Anitha Ashwath and daughter - Kum. Padmashree Gaikwad were brought on record as legal heirs of Ashwathanrayana Rao. They continued to pursue the petition and Anitha Ashwath tendered evidence as PW1 placing reliance on 14 documents. While the petitioner examined himself as DW1 and placed reliance on 5 documents.
The learned trial Judge considering the evidence on record, particularly, the Ex.P11 to P13 - rent receipts held there was jural relationship of Landlord and Tenant and decreed the suit. Assailing the same this revision is filed raising the following amongst other grounds:
(1) That the court of Small Causes has no jurisdiction to pass decree for ejectment as it is beyond its cognizance;
(2) There was no jural relationship of Landlord and Tenant;
(3) The Tenant has perfected title by adverse possession.
As there are divergent view expressed by this court regarding jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court to entertain the suit for ejectment and it was referred to Larger Bench. Full bench of this court has settled the issue vide its judgment in the case of Abdul Wajid Vs. A.S. Onkarappa, Thus, the first ground regarding lack of jurisdiction fails.
8.1 As regards two other ground are concerned, these are questions of fact. The trial Court has examined Ex.P11 to P13 - rent receipt evidencing dearly the transaction of lease between K. Ashwathanarayana Rao and K. Shankar Rao. The defendant''s contention that plaintiff was not owner of the property was rejected by the trial Court in view of defendant''s own contention that he has perfected title by adverse possession. However, during pendency as plaintiff died Smt. Anitha Ashwath tendered evidence. Tenant contended that she had not acquired any title to the property. In this regard reliance was placed on Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, which deals with situation like this. On the basis of material proof, the respondent - plaintiff had established that Ashwathanarayan Rao died intestate and his estate devolves upon Anitha Ashwath and her daughter. By inheritance they succeeded to the property which fact Tenant could not dispute. Since by law of succession the plaintiff has succeeded to the estate rightly Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act applies. Smt Anitha Ashwath and A. Padmashree have inherited the property therefore, lease in favor of defendant is deemed to have been attorney in their favor.
The plea of the defendant that he has perfected the title by adverse possession was rightly rejected by the trial Court noticing the fact that the Tenant through his contentions had accepted that the plaintiffs are owners of the property in question and he was tenant. There are no other grounds urged by the Tenant. Hence, the finding of the trial Court on this issue is clincher to hold that plaintiffs were owners of the property and the petitioner herein (defendant) having obtained the premises from its original owner was deemed to be the Tenant under the plaintiffs. Under the provisions of Section 106 of the T.P. Act the tenancy was terminated and hence there was no need to prove any other issues. The trial Court was right in decreeing the suit and I find no infirmity in the order impugned.
At this stage the learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner is running Industry in the building and thus requires reasonable time to vacate. He needs 2 and a half years time, which is opposed by the respondent. It is submitted respondent No. 1 is aged widow and she has to take care of her daughter. Daughter has come up to age and her marriage has to be performed.
The contentions of both sides on this aspect has received my consideration, but I am persuaded to accept the request of the learned counsel for petitioner that reasonable time has to be given to him to vacate the premises as petitioner has embedded heavy machines in the portion Tenanted to him, like lathe and other heavy machinery, This certainly would involve time to find alternate accommodation. Keeping in mind the fact situation in which the parties are placed it is desirable to grant one year time to the petitioner to quit, vacate and deliver the vacant possession of the schedule premises.
Accordingly the petition fails and it is dismissed. The order impugned is confirmed. However, it is modified so far as it relates to period of time. The petitioner is granted time of one year from today to quit, vacate and deliver the premises subject to payment of rents from the date of filing of the suit till now. For which purpose he is granted two months time. Grant of time is also subject to payment of future rents as and when it accrues due without default. The petitioner is also directed to file an affidavit in the form of undertaking before the Registry of this court in terms of this order. In case there is any default in payment of rent for consecutive period of two months, the benefit of time granted by this order will stand revoked.