Sri. R. Manjunatha vs G. Laxminaryanaraju and Others

Anand Byrareddy

The petitions coming on for orders regarding extension of interim order, the petitions itself are considered on merits. The petitioner before this Court is a tenant against whom an eviction petition has been filed by the respondent under the provisions of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'' for brevity). The landlord having died during the pendency of the petition, the present respondents have sought to enter appearance as the legal representatives of the deceased landlord before the Trial Court. The present petitioner, who is the tenant before the Trial Court, having raised an objection that the very capacity of the respondents herein, to claim as the legal representatives of the landlord, it was the contention of the petitioner that the question had to be decided in accordance with Order XXII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the ''CPC for brevity). The court below not having held any enquiry in that regard but having impleaded the present respondents as the legal representatives of the petitioner, the petitioner is before this Court. An interim order having been granted as on. 5.6.2012 for a period of eight weeks, has lapsed. Hence, the present application seeking extension of the interim order.

No doubt Rule 33 of the Karnataka Rent Rules, 2001 prescribes that the procedure to be adopted in respect of proceedings under the Act shall be guided by the provisions of the CPC. This would not imply that the complete CPC should be implanted into the proceedings of the Karnataka Rent Act. It goes without saying that proceedings under the Rent Act itself are in the nature of summary proceedings and to enlarge the scope of such enquiry by allowing parties to enter into long drawn out controversies as to the capacity of the parties to represent the landlord or the tenant when it can very well be decided along with the main petition in the very proceedings relating to eviction, there was no need for the court to hold a separate enquiry as to the capacity of the present respondents to claim as the legal representatives of the landlord. An issue in this regard could be considered along with the main petition, especially in the light of the circumstance that there is no other person claiming to represent the landlord and it is for the present respondents before this Court to establish before the Trial Court that they too have ground to continue the eviction petition notwithstanding the death of the landlord who had sought for recovery of the premises for his use and occupation. Therefore, it is for the present petitioner to urge that the present respondents are not the legal representatives of the landlord and "that they have no right to seek his eviction and for the respondents to assert and establish otherwise, which the Trial Court shall consider, in accordance with law. The present petitions are disposed of without prejudice to the contentions of either party.