Smt. Nandamma vs Srinivasa Reddy

Jawad Rahim

Tenant is in revision against the order dated 30.7.2011 rejecting his application filed u/s 43 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, (hereinafter referred to as the Act, for brevity) to dismiss the petition for want of jural relationship of landlord and tenant. The petition is listed for admission. Along with the petition, I.A.I/11 is filed seeking stay of the impugned order.

From what the learned counsel has adverted to and the material made available, it is manifest that one Srinivas Reddy, respondent herein, sought eviction of the petitioner-Smt. Nandamma in HRC. 140/10 on the premise, he is the owner of the property in her occupation having purchased the same from its original owner. Before his purchase, she was inducted as tenant by his predecessor in title on a monthly rent of Rs. 500/- and thus she is a tenant under him by operation of law.

It is alleged, when the respondent approached her and requested to pay rents to him, she challenged his title and proclaimed she would not recognize him as the landlord. He thus invoked clause (o) of Section 27(2) of the Act. He further alleged the property in question is required for his own use and occupation after demolition and reconstruction and carrying out necessary repairs, which cannot be done if the tenant is in occupation.

In answer to these grounds, petitioner-tenant filed counter in which she questioned maintainability of the petition on the ground she is in occupation of the premises, no doubt as tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 500/-, but not under the respondent, but under the former owner. She did not dispute his claim that he has purchased the property in the manner known to law. Her contention was before he purchased the property, there were other sale transactions and hence, she was at a loss to know who exactly was the owner. There is, however, no detailed-averment to resist the ground under clause (r) of subsection (2) of Section 27 of the Act.

At this juncture, she thought it fit to flaw the attempt of the respondent-landlord to seek eviction by resorting to Section. 43 of the Act. The principal prayer made therein was to dismiss the petition for want of jural relationship of landlord and tenant. AS expected/the application was resisted by the landlord which led to conduct of enquiry by the trial court in which the respondent-landlord tendered evidence as PW1 and produced 5 documents including deed of sale dated 26.1.1959 by which one Ramaiah had sole the property in favour of Munishamappa, who in turn had sold it to Ramaiah on 19.1.1961. Ramaiah then sold it to Lakshmaiah on 15.11.1961. After the death of Lakshmaiah, his son Prabhakar executed an agreement of sale in favour of Sanjeevamma in respect of a portion measuring 35'' x 45''. After the death of Sanjeevamma, her children jointly succeeded to the property and in exercise of their right of ownership, inducted the petitioner herein. From them, respondent has purchased the property.

Against this evidence, petitioner could lay no material except denial simplicitor. The ground urged by her is, she had no notice of transfer of property in favour of the respondent by the former owner. Whether she was entitled to notice and if so, in what manner has to be examined with reference to Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act which envisages:

''109. Rights of lessor''s transferee - If the lessor transfers the property leased, or any part of his interest therein, the transferee, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, shall possess all the rights, and, if the lessee so elects, be subject to all the liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is the owner of it; but the lessor shall not, by reason only of such transfer, cease to be subject to any of the liabilities imposed upon him by the lease, unless the lessee elects to treat the transferee as the person liable to him:

Provided that the transferee is not entitled to arrears of rent due before the transfer, and that, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent over again to the transferee.

The lessor, the transferee and the lessee may determine what proportion of the premium or rent reserved by the lease is payable in respect of the part so transferred, and, in case they disagree, such determination may be made by any court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the property leased.''

In this case, the lessee has no reason to believe that the transfer has not taken place. When evidence is led, it establishes the case of the respondent. That is enough to impute knowledge in the mind of the tenant that transfer has taken place, and if he/she were to pay rents to the-- former owner despite such knowledge, by virtue of the proviso, she is not absolved of her liability. In this case, if not by notice of communication, at least by filing the petition, respondent had proclaimed himself to be the owner of the property in question. Therefore, we expect from the petitioner-tenant reasonable conduct to pay rents or deposit it at least from the date of petition. Instead of doing so, she has continued to pay rents to the former owner, which is, of course, subject to proof. That does not amount to legal tender to seek discharge in view of Section 109, Transfer of Property Act. In this fact situation, when the petitioner has not set up title in herself or anybody else saying that she is paying rents to the person who inducted her, proceedings could not have been stayed by the trial court. Rightly the trial court has rejected.

In the result, I find no merit in the petition. It is accordingly dismissed. In the circumstances, I.A.I/11 for stay does not survive for consideration and stands rejected.