AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Aravind Kumar, J.—The respondents No. 2 to 4 before the Revision Court are questioning the order passed in RRP. No. 12/2008 dated 04.02.2010 by the I Additional District Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore.
The facts in nutshell are as follows:
An eviction petition in HRC. No. 12/2005 came to be filed by the respondents No. 1 to 3 herein against Sri. K. Balakrishna i.e., fourth respondent herein and revision petitioners 1 to 3 u/s 27(2)(r) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999. During the pendency of the said proceedings an application u/s 43 came to be filed by the first respondent Sri. K. Balakrishna contending that there was no jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The said application came to be resisted and on adjudication by order dated 29.06.2006 I.A. No. 1 filed u/s 43 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, came to be rejected. Aggrieved by the same the first respondent therein i.e., fourth respondent herein filed a revision petition before the District Judge, Dakshina Kannada in RRP. No. 26/2006. The said revision petition also came to be dismissed by order dated 26.03.2007. Not being satisfied with the same it was pursued before this Court in WP. No. 6792/2007 which also ended in a dismissal by order dated 18.04.2007.
At that point of time the first respondent Sri. Balakrishna who had pursued the above proceedings is said to have filed a memo before the Rent Court in HRC. No. 12/2005 stating that he had vacated and surrendered possession of portion of residential premises in favour of respondents No. 2 to 4 by recognizing them (the revision petitioners herein) as landlords. It was further contended that there was subsisting jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioners before the Kent Court and the first respondent. Though petitioners i.e., respondents 1 to 3 herein objected to the said memo being accepted, the Rent Court by its order dated 09.08.2007 accepted the said memo and dismissed HRC. No. 12/2005 as having become infructuous.
This order dated 09.08.2007 passed in HRC No. 12/2005 came to be questioned by respondents No. 1 to 3 herein before the first Additional District Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore in Rent Revision Petition No. 12/2008. The Revisional Court by its order dated 04.02.2010 reversed the finding of the Rent Court and set aside the order dated 09.08.2007 passed in HRC. No. 12/2005 and allowed the eviction petition HRC. No. 12/2005. It is this order which is now assailed in the present revision petition.
I have heard Sri. Mukkannappa, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. B.Y. Achar, learned Counsel appearing for caveator respondents No. 1 to 3.
It is contended by Sri. Mukkannappa, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that pursuant to the memo filed by the first respondent before the Rent Court, possession has been handed over to the revision petitioners and they are in possession and enjoyment of the portion handed over to them. It is further submitted that suit in O.S. No. 130/2005 has been filed by the respondents No. 1 to 3 herein seeking relief of partition and possession and in the event the respondents No. 1 to 3 herein were to succeed in the suit in O.S. No. 130/2005 possession would be handed over to them and no prejudice would be caused to them.
Per contra Sri. B.Y. Achar, learned Counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 3 would contend that tenant i.e., fourth respondent herein having challenged the jural relationship of landlord and tenant between him and respondents No. 1 to 3 herein before the Rent Court and having failed, as approved by the Revisional Court and confirmed by the Writ Court has handed over possession to revision petitioners with the sole intention of defeating the rights of the respondents No. 1 to 3 herein. He would draw the attention of the Court to the order passed by this Court in WP. No. 6792/2007 dated 18.04.2007 wherein it has been confirmed that respondents No. 1 to 3 herein are the landlords of the premises in question. Accordingly he seeks for dismissal of the revision petition.
Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, the following points arise for my consideration:
(i) Whether the Revisional Court was justified in allowing the eviction petition filed in HRC. No. 12/2005 by order dated 04.02.2010?
Or
Whether the order dated 04.02.2010 passed in RRP 12/2008 by the First Additional District Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore suffers from any infirmity either in law or on facts?
(ii) Whether the order dated 09.08.2007 passed in HRC. No. 12/2005 is required to be confirmed by reversing the order passed in Revision Rent Petition No. 12/2008 dated 04.02.2010.
(iii) What order?
A perusal of the order passed by the Revisional Court would reveal that fourth respondent herein against whom eviction petition was filed by the respondents No. 1 to 3 herein in HRC. No. 12/2005 had initially denied the jural relationship of landlord and tenant. An order came to be passed on his application filed u/s 43 by way of rejection by order dated 29.06.2006. This order was admittedly challenged by him before the Revisional Court in RRP. No. 26/2006. The said revision petition also came to be rejected by the District Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore by order dated 26.03.2007. The said order was further pursued by filing writ petition before this Court in WP. No. 6792/2007 which also ended in dismissal. Thus, it had reached finality.
The said order has become final and having accepted the same, the above said first respondent i.e., fourth respondent herein has filed a memo by contending that respondents No. 2 to 4 therein (HRC. No. 12/2005) i.e., revision petitioners herein are the owners of the schedule premises and giving a complete go by to his earlier stand that on account of pendency of partition suit he need not deliver possession to any of the parties. This plea having been accepted by the Rent Court did not find favour before the Revisional Court in Rent Revision RRP. No. 12/2008, rightly so inasmuch as the finding with regard to the existence of jural relationship between the fourth respondent and respondents No. 1 to 3 had been held to be that of the landlord and tenant by this Court in WP. No. 6792/2007. In view of the same the Revisional Court has rightly allowed the revision petition by allowing the eviction petition HRC. No. 12/2005. The said order does not suffer from any infirmity whatsoever. In view of the same, question Nos. 1 and 2 formulated herein above is to be answered by holding that the order of the Revisional Court does not suffer from any infirmity and the order passed by the Rent Court in HRC. No. 12/2005 as set aside by Revisional Court is not required to be interfered or set aside.
In view of the above discussion, the following order is passed:
ORDER
The revision petition is dismissed and order passed by the Revisional Court in RRP. No. 12/2008 dated 04.02.2010 is hereby confirmed and it would be needless to say that respondents No. 1 to 3 who had initiated the eviction proceedings in HRC. No. 12/2005 would be entitled to execute decree only insofar as the proceedings initiated in the said proceedings and in respect of the said schedule premises only as described in Eviction Petition HRC 12/2005. With these observations, the revision petition is dismissed.