relationship between landlord and tenant
Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, The trial court examined the prayer and held that the jural relationship of landlord and tenant was admitted. Results 1 - 10 of 28 Rent and eviction-- Finding of civil Court regarding relationship between Respondent/tenant denied jural relationship of landlord-tenant. present subsisting liability and indicate the existence of jural relationship much as it was denied that there was any relationship of landlord and tenant.
Doraiswamy filed a suit for the eviction of the appellant in Civil Appeal No. The order was made on February 22, Pursuant to Doraiswamy purchasing the property in question in execution proceeding, the Corporation initially entered the name of Mr. Doraiswamy along with Mr.
Dhanapal in its record, but later realizing its mistake deleted his name by order dated June 16, This was challenged by Doraiswamy who filed a suit being O.
The suit filed on October 10, was ultimately dismissed on January 31, holding that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction in view of the fact that the plaintiff was not the owner of the property which was really a public premises. The said Regular First Appeal was dismissed for non- prosecution on February 27, and, thereafter, a petition for restoration was also dismissed for non-prosecution on January 10, While the aforesaid Regular First Appeal was pending in the High Court, Doraiswamy claiming to be the landlord, filed applications for eviction of the appellants herein under various provisions of the Karnataka Rent Control Act including Section 21 1 h thereof.
The said applications were numbered as H. During the pendency of the said suit Doraiswamy died. In terms of the Will executed by him, his daughter, the respondent herein, was brought on record as his legal representative.
It is important at this stage to refer to the proceedings initiated by the appellants during the pendency of the eviction proceeding.
It appears that the tenants preferred H. The said revision petition was disposed of by the High Court directing the trial court to consider the question as a preliminary issue. The trial court, thereafter, considered the question as a preliminary issue and held that jural relationship of landlord and tenant was established between the parties.
Aggrieved by the said order H.
In those revision petitions the High Court also noticed that once the relationship of landlord and tenant was admitted, it continued to exist until it was put to an end in a manner known to law. The mere claim of the Corporation claiming to be the owner, could not affect the rights and obligations of the parties as landlord and tenants.
Thus, the High Court affirmed in revision that landlord-tenant relationship existed and, therefore, the application for eviction was maintainable under the Karnataka Rent Control Act. It appears that during the pendency of the proceeding before the trial court an application under Section 29 4 of the Act was filed by the landlord stating that he was willing to personally receive the rent from the tenant.
The trial court directed that the rent be given to the landlord directly. This order of November 30, was challenged by the tenants in H. The trial court ultimately allowed the applications for eviction on the ground enumerated in Section 21 1 h of the Karnataka Rent Control Act,by its order dated January 27, The appellants herein preferred H.
Even at the stage of admission the appellants sought to urge before the High Court that the eviction petition was not maintainable in view of absence of landlord-tenant relationship. It was not open to the appellants to challenge the decisions of the trial court aforesaid which were affirmed by the High Court in revision, and which operated as res-judicata against the tenants.
They could not be permitted in law to re-agitate the same issue on one or the other pretext. Having so recorded its finding, the High Court directed the matter to be placed for admission on the other questions involved in the two revision petitions. Ultimately, the matter came to be heard by the High Court, and by its impugned common judgment and order the revision petitions were dismissed. One another aspect of the matter may be noticed at this stage. The Bangalore Mahanagar Palike claiming to be the owner of the premises in question had filed a suit being O.
In the said suit the Corporation prayed for a declaration to the effect that the sale deed executed on 9th June, on behalf of Smt.
Lakshmamma and others in favour of predecessor-in-interest of defendant No. A further declaration was sought that the schedule property belonged absolutely to the Corporation. Other reliefs such as permanent injunction etc. However, the Corporation filed a memo admitting that it ought to have sought the relief under Karnataka Public Premises Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants Act, In view of the admission of the Corporation aforesaid, the Court held that the suit was not maintainable and accordingly the application filed by the respondent herein under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 94 of the Code of Civil Procedure was allowed and the plaint was rejected.
A copy of the order of the Court dated March 1, was handed over to us when the appeal was being heard. It thus appears that the sale deed executed by the Court on behalf of the judgment-debtor in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent has not so far been set aside or cancelled.
The sale deed purports to confer on the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent absolute title to the property in question. Even before us it was strenuously urged that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and, therefore, an application for eviction under the Karnataka Rent Control Act was not maintainable. We have earlier noticed that this submission was urged by the appellants at earlier stages in the proceeding. When the issue was tried as a preliminary issue and the trial court found that the jural relationship did exit, a revision was preferred before the High Court which was dismissed.
The material on record also discloses that the same plea was taken in opposition to the application filed by the landlord under Section 29 4 of the Act and the same was again rejected.
A revision against the said order was also dismissed by the High Court. It is also admitted by the appellant in Civil Appeal No. The High Court in its earlier order dated September 6, has also referred to these facts and held that these orders having attained finality it was not open to the appellants to reopen the issue and to reagitate the same question over again. Apart from the finding of the High Court, the undisputed position is that the appellants were inducted as tenants by Doraiswamy.
Doraiswamy claimed to be the absolute owner of the property pursuant to the sale deed executed by the Court in his favour in execution proceeding. It is, therefore, apparent that the appellants were inducted as tenants by Doraiswamy, their landlord. The question as to whether Doraiswamy was the absolute owner of the property is not relevant in considering the question whether there existed the jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.
The appellants had been paying rent to Doraiswamy. These facts lead to the inescapable conclusion that relationship of landlord and tenant existed, and the several orders passed by the trial court and the High Court in this regard cannot be faulted. On facts, therefore, we find that the appellants cannot deny the fact that they were inducted as tenants by Doraiswamy, the father of the respondent and her predecessor-in-interest.
It was then urged before the High Court that the need of the respondent was fully met as she had come in possession of other portions of the building which were earlier occupied by two other tenants.
In any event, it was argued, the right to sue did not enure to the benefit of the respondent since the requirement pleaded by Doraiswamy, her late father, was not for the benefit of the present respondent.
stapelholm.infoJAN versus stapelholm.info
The High Court has elaborately considered this submission and negatived it. We have been taken through the judgment of the High Court and we find no reason to take a different view. The entire property bearing Cantonment Municipal No.
Respondent-landlord has filed the registered sale deeds Exhibits P41 and P45 which clearly establish that the entire property of which the demised premises is also a part, the father of the respondent-landlord was the absolute owner. As pointed out by the first appellate court and also the High Court, the above sale deeds and other documents were produced and accepted as documents of title of the landlord in O.
Upon perusal of the title deeds of the property, the said suit, O. The said judgment was also confirmed in appeal in A. The ownership of the property including demised premises is also established by the assessment records maintained by the Secunderabad Cantonment Board.
The Cantonment's Board letter Exhibit P2 dated The mother, brother and sister of the respondent-landlord executed the release deed as per Exhibit P15 and relinquished their rights, the portion of the house bearing old Nos. Insofar as the stand taken by the tenant that he is in occupation ofthe appellant-tenant has not produced any oral or documentary evidence to prove that the said property bearing No.
According to respondent-landlord, the portion occupied by the tenant forms part and parcel of house No. The courts below have referred to the report of the Commissioner that the demised premises which is in occupation of the appellant-tenant is adjoining to the premises in occupation of the landlord and is just separated by a wall. Insofar as the contention of the appellant that the property is the government property, PW-5 Balaiah, Mandal Revenue Officer, Secunderabad has stated in his evidence that after perusing the title deeds, Exhibit X2 was issued and that the land in question along with building Municipal No.
There are about twenty tenants in the premises No.
Apart from the documentary evidence, respondent-landlord had also adduced oral evidence by examining his mother PW-3who has spoken about the tenancy and quantum of rent and she used to collect rents from the tenants. PW-4 who is in occupation of the other portion of the same building since till and who subsequently purchased the same from the legal heirs of M. Razack has also spoken about the tenancy of appellant-tenant.