Smt. Buvaneshwari vs Smt. Sanda

Jawad Rahim, J.—This petition is directed against the order dated 05.10.2009 in H.R.C. No. 618/2006 on the file of XI Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes (SCCH-12), Bangalore staying further proceedings and directing the Petitioner to have their rights adjudicated in a civil Court of competent jurisdiction.

Petition is belated by 130 days. Misc. Cvl. No 8697/2010 is filed seeking condonation of the delay. It is opposed by the counsel for the Respondent. However, considering the circumstances narrated, though it does not constitute sufficient cause, the delay of 130 days in filing the petition is condoned.

Petition is taken up for admission. Heard and admitted and taken up for final disposal.

As could be seen from the contentions urged by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the issues considered by the trail Court, the Petitioner herein initiated eviction proceedings against the Respondent assertively contending that her father Muniswamy was the owner of the schedule property and during his lifetime, he gifted it to her on 22.08.2006. Thus, she became the owner of the property and she averred that the Respondent herein was a tenant under Muniswamy and by virtue of transfer of property by gift deed, she acquired the rights over the property and is thus landlord.

Per contra, the Respondent though admitted tenancy between her and Muniswamy, denied right title and interest of the Petitioner. In this regard, she averred that no doubt Muniswamy was the owner of the property but he had appointed one Ravikumar as General Power of attorney who was collecting rents in terms of GPA. Later, Ravikumar sold the property to one Sendil kumar who is the present owner and he is collecting rent from her. In pursuance thereof, he is now the owner of the property in question and the tenancy between her and Muniswamy is extinguished

Parties have lead evidence.

The Petitioner has produced almost 21 documents in support of her claim which are basically the documents pertaining to the title of Muniswamy. The deed of gift propounded by her was not produced. She produced certified copy of the deed and relied on correlated records of the municipal authorities, She contends that the General Power of Attorney executed by Muniswamy was revoked on 19.09.2006 and therefore, Sri. Ravikumar could not have sold the property in question.

Learned trial Judge noticed that the question involved is whether the title claimed by the Petitioner has passed on to her in accordance with taw and whether the alleged gift deed in favour of the Petitioner was genuine. The learned trial Judge having noticed the limited scope of enquiry in proceedings under Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 and in view of the provision of Section 43 of the Act, held that there is no material evidence to hold existence of viniculum juris of landlord and tenant between the Petitioner and the Respondent whereas there is documentary evidence produced by the Respondent relating to the sale transaction vide Ex.R5 and therefore that prevails. Since there was a rival claim of title, it was desirable to have it decided by a civil Court of competent jurisdiction. I do not find any error in such a judgment. In the giver, fact situation, the order impugned is just and proper and does not call for interference. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.