AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ashok B. Hinchigeri, J. - The petitioner has called into question the order, dated 20-3-2015 (Annexure-G) passed by the Court of Small Causes on I.A. No. 8 in S.C. No. 298 of 2012.
The facts of the case in brief are that the respondent filed the suit against the petitioner seeking the arrears of rent and the vacant possession of the schedule properties. In the said proceedings, the petitioner filed I.A. No. 8 invoking Section 8 of the Karnataka Small Cause Courts Act, 1964 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for returning the plaint for being presented to the Competent Civil Court. On the Small Causes Court rejecting the said I.A., this petition is filed.
Sri Ashwathanarayana Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has nowhere recognised the respondent as his landlord or owner of the schedule property. Merely because the petitioner was paying the rent to Mrs. Shanthi and thereafter to her brother Krishna Rao, who is said to have bequeathed the property in favour of the respondent, the jural relationship of landlord and tenant cannot be taken as established.
He submits that the Court has proceeded on the erroneous assumption that the petitioner has admitted in his plaint in O.S. No. 8490 of 2012 filed against the respondent for bare injunction that he is the tenant under the respondent-Mutt.
He relies on the Apex Court''s judgment in the case of Budhu Mai v. Mahahir Prasad and Others, AIR 1988 SC 1772 for advancing the submission that the Small Causes Court ought to have returned the plaint to do complete justice to the parties. He relies on the Bombay High Court''s decision in the case of Pandurang Laxman Mohite v. Kaluram Bahiru Bhikule, AIR 1956 Bom. 254 wherein it is held that the question of jurisdiction is the determining factor.
Nextly, he relies on this Court''s decision in the case of Khandehoal Brothers Company Limited, Bangalore v. G.S. Nisar Ahmed, ILR 2004 Kar. 2864in support of his submission that the landlord-tenant relationship is denied or the title is denied, the Small Causes Court has to return the plaint for being presented to the Civil Court for adjudication.
To contend that the payment of rent does not necessarily establish the relationship of landlord and tenant, he relies on the Apex Court''s judgment in the case of Sheodhari Rai and Others v. Suraj Prasad Singh and Others, AIR 1954 SC 758.
He relies on the Division Bench decision of Patna High Court in the case of Ramkaran Singh and Others v. Sm. Parbati Kuer and Others, AIR 1954 Pat. 443 (Vol. 41, C.N. 152), wherein it is held that the relationship of landlord and tenant is the very foundation of a decree in a rent suit and as such is a matter necessary to be determined.
Sri H.R. Ananthakrishna Murthy, the learned Counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner has admitted both the respondent''s ownership of the property in question and also that the petitioner has been paying the rent to the respondent. In support of his submissions, he read out the relevant averments from the plaint in O.S. No. 8490 of 2012 filed by the petitioner and his brother against the respondent. They are extracted herein below:
"7. defendant mutt used to collect the rentals from the plaintiffs regularly in respect of ''A'' and ''B'' Schedule properties. It is submitted that as on today no arrears or rent is payable to the defendant-mutt.
11............if the defendant returned the said advance amount they would ready to quit and to vacate and to handover the schedule properties to the defendant, however, the defendant did not agreed to returned the advance amount but the defendant posed a threat stating that they would not returned the advance amount and at the same time they would not allow the plaintiffs to run the business in the schedule properties ............It is submitted that the plaintiff are the lawful tenants of schedule premises, they are paying rent regularly and that the defendants herein has no manner of right, whatsoever to evict the plaintiffs from the schedule properties illegally taking the law into his hands."
Nextly, the learned Counsel brings to my notice what the petitioner has stated in his affidavit filed in O.S. No. 8490 of 2012. The contents of the said affidavit read out by him are extracted herein below:
"4.............. I further submit that after the death of C.M. Krishna Rao, the defendant -Mutt has become the owner of the schedule properties and we have paid rental to the defendant-mutt regularly.
5........... if they have returned huge advance amount of Rs. 6,50,000/- paid towards ''A'' and ''B'' Schedule property we ready to quit and to vacate and to hand over the schedule property etc. However, the defendant had not agreed to return the advance amount ."
The learned Counsel submits that the perusal of the afore-extracted portions of the petitioner''s affidavit reveals that the petitioner admits of the respondent''s ownership of the property in question and that the petitioner has been paying the rents to them. He relies on the Apex Court''s judgment in the case of Nagindas Ramdas v. Dulpatram Iccharam alias Brijram and Others, AIR 1974 SC 471 to advance the submission that the admissions made in the pleadings or judicial admission made by the parties stand on a higher footing than the evidential admission. He submits that it is further held in the said case that the admissions themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties.
He has also relied on this Court''s decision in the case of Leeladhara v. Vivek Mohan Shenoy, 2016 (2) Kar. L.J. 438 and the Apex Court''s judgment in the case of Karam Kapahi and Others v. M/s. Lal Chand Public Charitable Trust and Another, AIR 2010 SC 2077 to advance the submission that if the provision of Order 12, Rule 1 is compared with Order 12, Rule 6 , it becomes clear that the provision of Order 12, Rule 6 is wider inasmuch as the provision of Order 12, Rule 1 is limited to admission by ''pleadings or otherwise in writing''. In Order 12, Rule 6 , the expression ''or otherwise'' is much wider in view of the words used therein namely: ''admission of fact either in the pleading or otherwise, whether orally or in writing''.
The learned Counsel submits that the petitioner has not filed any written statement where the jural relationships is denied.
The submissions of the learned Counsel have received my thoughtful consideration. The question that arises for my consideration is whether the Trial Court is justified in rejecting the petitioner''s I.A. No. 8 for the return of the plaint? Admittedly, the petitioner did not file the written statement within the prescribed period of limitation. His application for the condonation of delay and for the leave of the Trial Court to file the written statement belatedly is dismissed. Tire order dismissing the petitioner''s said I.A. has also attained the finality because the petitioner unsuccessfully challenged the order on the said I.A. before this Court by way of filing the writ petition and thereafter by filing the writ appeal. Further, the petitioner took up the matter with the Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 4409 and 4410 of 2007. The Hon''ble Supreme Court dismissed the appeal imposing the cost of Rs. 10,000/- on the petitioner.
The dismissal of the civil appeal by the Supreme Court is on 13-10-2011. Thereafter the petitioner waits for three long years and files I.A. No. 8 that too when the examination-in-chief of P.W. 1 is over and the matter is set down for the cross-examination of P.W. 1.
Considering these aspects of the matter, the Trial Court appears to have formed the view that the I.A. is filed only to drag on the proceedings. No documents whatsoever are produced to show that the petitioner had deposited the arrears of rent with the Trial Court at least from the date of the institution of the S.C. No. 298 of 2012.
It is also worthwhile to notice that the petitioner has indeed stated (if not admitted) that the respondent-Mutt used to collect the rentals from the petitioner regularly. The affidavit filed by the petitioner by way of examination-in-chief in O.S. No. 8490 of 2012 contains the categorical admission that the respondent-Mutt has become the owner of the property in question. The petitioner further expresses his willingness in the said affidavit to hand over the property in question, if the respondent returns the huge advance amount of Rs. 6,50,000/-.
The pleadings and the affidavit evidence in O.S. No. 8490 of 2012 are clearly indicative of ownership of the respondent-Mutt and the relationship of landlord-tenant between the parties herein.
For all the aforesaid reasons, I dismiss this petition. However, it is made clear that the reasons stated herein above are only for the disposal of this petition. The Small Causes Court shall dispose of S.C. No. 298 of 2012 independently of and without being influenced by the reasons indicated herein above. Both the parties are directed to co-operate with the Small Causes Court in the speedy disposal of S.C. No. 298 of 2012.
Now that the main matter itself is disposed of nothing survives for I.A. Nos. 1 of 2015 and 3 of 2016. They are dismissed as having become unnecessary.