T. Molly and Others vs N.R. Suresh Kumar

S.N. Satyanarayana, J.—1. Respondents in HRC No. 10032/2014 on the file of V Addl. Small Causes Judge and XXIV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Court of Small Causes, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru, have come up in this revision petition impugning the order of eviction dated 15.12.2015.

The brief facts leading to this revision are as under:--

2.1 Respondent herein filed a petition under Section 27(2)(e)(g)(h) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, (hereinafter referred to as the ''Act'') seeking eviction of tenants from the petition schedule premises on the ground that: they are in arrears of rent; that the petition premises is in dilapidated condition and the same is unsafe for residence; that the same is required to be demolished and reconstructed for use of landlord. It is further stated that the petitioner-landlord had written a letter to the Commissioner, Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP), seeking to inspect the petition schedule premises. In that regard, a reply is given by Special Commissioner, BBMP., directing the concerned Engineer to inspect the petition premises and give a report. According to the landlord, the tenants, petitioners herein, are chronic defaulters in payment of rent and he got issued a legal notice to them calling upon them to pay arrears of rent and vacate and handover vacant possession of the premises, to which except giving an untenable reply, they have neither vacated the petition premises nor paid arrears of rent. Hence, petition for eviction was filed for the aforesaid reliefs.

2.2 In the said proceedings, on service of notice, respondents in the eviction petition, who are petitioners herein, entered appearance and took a defence that the petition premises earlier belonged to Lal Chandani, and Jamunalal, who are co-owners of the said property and they have executed a Will dated 10.10.1952 in favour of one Albert, who is said to be the father-in-law of respondent No. 1-Mrs. T. Molly and grand parent of respondent Nos. 2 and 3. According to them, by virtue of the said Will, Mr. Albert during his lifetime, was in possession of the petition premises. It is stated that the legatee under the Will, Mr. Albert, died. However, the date of death of Mr. Albert is not referred to in the statement of objections. After the death of Mr. Albert, his son, A. Thomas, who was said to be living along with his father in the petition premises continued to be in possession of the same as its absolute owner. It is stated that the said Thomas died on 13.06.2010. Thereafter, as legal heirs of deceased Thomas, respondents continued in possession of the said premises. Hence, they took a defence that they are not tenants under the petitioner as stated in the eviction petition and they denied that they were paying monthly rent of Rs. 800/- in respect of the petition premises and sought for dismissal of the petition.

2.3 In the said proceedings before the trial Court, evidence was recorded. On behalf of the petitioner, his daughter and special power of attorney holder, Maria, adduced evidence by relying upon 19 documents, which are marked as Exs.P1 to P19. On behalf of respondents, a person by name, Ravi, special power of attorney holder of respondents adduced evidence as RW.1 and he has produced in all 22 documents as Exs.R1 to R22. The trial Court, on appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record by order dated 15.12.2015, allowed the petition with a direction to respondents to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the petition schedule premises to the petitioner within 60 days from 15.12.2015. Being aggrieved by the said eviction order, respondents are before this Court.

Heard learned counsel for petitioners as well as the respondent and perused the material on record. On going through the same, it is seen that though respondents in the eviction petition, who are revision petitioners, took a defence that they are the owners of the petition premises and claimed that Mr. Albert, the father-in-law of revision petitioner No. 1 and grandfather of revision petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 was the beneficiary of the Will dated 10.10.1952 executed by Lal Chandani and Jamunalal, co-owners of the petition premises and after his demise, Mr. A. Thomas, husband of revision petitioner No. 1 and father of revision petitioner Nos. 2 and 3, continued in possession of the petition premises, it is pertinent to note that no proceedings were initiated by A. Thomas during his lifetime or by revision petitioners after the demise of A. Thomas to seek declaration of his/their title in respect of the petition property and no steps have been taken to get the petition premises entered in the records of BBMP or any other municipal authority since 10.10.1952, the date of the alleged Will executed in favour of late Mr. Albert. Even in the eviction petition filed by the respondent herein, no steps are taken by revision petitioners for seeking declaration of their alleged title to the petition premises. The trial Court has observed that revision petitioners have not referred to the alleged Will dated 10.10.1952 in their reply dated 11.08.2014 given to the legal notice issued by respondent herein and for the first time, defence in that regard was taken in the statement of objections and hence, they have not proved execution of the said Will, Ex. R2 and the documents produced by them do not prove their title in respect of the petition premises.

Per contra, it is seen that the respondent herein, petitioner in the eviction petition, was able to demonstrate that the petition premises earlier belonged to Smt. Rukmini, the mother of petitioner, who in turn, has executed a registered Will dated 24.04.1992 in bequeathing the said property in favour of the respondent herein and he could also establish the relationship of tenant and landlord between revision petitioners and respondent herein, in respect of the petition premises by producing the rent receipt book as per Ex. P14, declaration - Ex. P8, wherein Smt. N.R. Rukmini, the mother of respondent herein, had declared Mr. Albert as tenant at the earliest point of time in 1976 and other relevant documents. Based on that, the points, which were framed for consideration, were answered in the affirmative and consequently, eviction petition filed by the respondent herein, was allowed by order dated 15.12.2015.

It is clear from the material on record that no justifiable grounds are made out to admit this revision petition to reconsider the finding rendered by the trial Court on the points for consideration raised in the eviction petition and the order of eviction impugned in this petition does not call for interference. Considering the fact that the petition schedule premises was in a dilapidated condition even before the eviction petition was filed in the year 2014, granting of further time to revision petitioners to continue in the said building would pose a threat to their lives and therefore, though it would be difficult for them to find an alternate accommodation, in the guise of showing humanitarian consideration, their lives cannot be put to threat by allowing them to live in the petition premises, which is in dilapidated condition. Even otherwise, the conduct of revision petitioners in setting up title to the property of the respondent herein on the basis of bogus Will, Ex. R2, which they were not able to substantiate in the Court below, should also be kept in mind. Revision petitioners seem to be taking the proceedings before the Court as a joke and are under the impression that any kind of defence could be taken before the Court and the same can be pursued to continue in possession of the petition property. Hence, their petition should not be entertained by granting further time.

Accordingly, this revision petition filed by respondents in HRC No. 10032/2014 is dismissed and while doing so, further time is not extended for revision petitioners to vacate the petition schedule premises. In view of dismissal of this revision petition, I.A.I/2016 for stay does not arise for consideration and the same stands disposed of.