@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
A.V. Chandrashekara, J.@mdashCommon order on the revision petitions regarding admission.
2. These three revision petitions filed under Section 46(1) of Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 have arisen out of final orders passed by the Chief Judge in Eviction Petition in HRC Nos. 107/2013, 108/2013 and 109/2013. All these petitions have been disposed of on 15.10.2015 by separate considered orders.
3. The revision petitioners were respondents in all these three eviction petitions filed under Section 27(2)(r) of Karnataka Rent Act, 1999. In the case, bearing No. 107/2013 Section 5 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, has also been revoked by the petitioner therein.
4. Perused the impugned orders passed in HRC Nos. 107 to 109/2013 and heard the learned counsel representing the revision petitioners in all these cases.
5. Schedule property in HRC No. 107/2013 is described as residential premises in fourth floor of property bearing No. 4 (New No. 4/11), situated at 2nd Cross, Belli Basavanna Temple Street, Mamulpet, Bangalore-53 consists of one hall, one kitchen with toilet-cum-bathroom. Schedule property mentioned in HRC No. 108/2013 is the adjacent residential premises, consists of one hall, one room, kitchen, one pooja room with toilet-cum-bathroom and the schedule property mentioned in HRC No. 109/2013 is a commercial premises in the ground floor of the same property, measuring 6''x 13''.
6. The entire building consists of three portions and one portion belonging to one T.R. Mallikarjun. The said Mallikarjun is no more. Petitioners in HRC No. 107/2013 and 108/2013 are his son Vinay and wife Rekha. In HRRP No. 109/2013 the petitioners are One Mr. Siddeswar S/o. deceased T.R. Mallikarjun and Rekha wife of deceased T.R. Mallikarjun.
7. A legal notice was got issued by Smt. Rekha W/o. T.R. Mallikarjun on 17.04.2013 calling upon Smt. Bindu Mishra, wife of Dileepkumar Mishra and daughter-in-law of late Harishankar Mishra to vacate and handover the residential premises occupied by her. The said notice is marked at Ex. P5 in the trial Court. The said notice was replied by Smt. Bindu Mishra on 06.05.2013 through her advocate which was marked at Ex. P6.
8. After relying on the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the learned Judge has come to the conclusion that there exists jural relationship of land lord and tenant between the parties and that the premises are used and occupied by the petitioners. It is also specifically held that Smt. Bindu Mishra herself has split up the tenancy and therefore the petitions are maintained.
9. What is argued before this Court by Sri H.J. Sanghvi is that the Court is not empowered to split up the tenancy. There is sufficient evidence insofar as to show the existence of jural relationship of the landlord and the tenant between the parties. It is further argued that the trial Court has not properly analyzed the oral and documentary evidence in prescriptive and the trial Court has adopted wrong procedure.
10. He has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case of
11. After perusal of the records, it is evident that when the notice was got issued vide Ex. P5, the tenancy was in respect of only one residential premises and it was in occupation of Smt. Bindu Mishra. Admittedly, Sri Dileepkumar Mishra one of the respondent in the trial Court is none other than the son of original tenant Mr. Harishankar and Smt. Bindu Mishra is none other than the wife of Sri Dileepkumar Mishra and daughter-in-law of Sri Harishankar Mishra and Hitesh Kumar Mishra is the son of Dileepkumar Mishra and Smt. Bindu Mishra. All of them constitute a joint family. When a notice was got issued to Smt. Bindu Mishra vide Ex. P5 on 17.04.2013, a reply notice was got issued by her through her advocate and it is specifically mentioned therein about the three separate premises i.e. two residential premises in the 4th floor and one commercial premises in the ground floor. The relevant portion of the reply notice-Ex. P6 is as follows:
"the mother of the respondent has contended that she is tenant in respect of portion of 4th floor of the building as per lease deed dated 1.2.2004 and advance of Rs. 1,75,000/- was paid and an additional advance of Rs. 1 lakh was paid and had agreed to pay rent of Rs. 1,000/- only."
12. This Ex. P6 is the very material evidence and that has been taken in to consideration by the trial Court. The trial Court has not split the tenancy as argued by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners. On the other hand, Smt. Bindu Mishra who is none other than the daughter-in-law of Sri Harishankar Mishra in whose favour property in question was leased has made it clear about the occupation of three tenants and the respective rents paid by them.
13. Though, the stand is taken in the trial Court to the effect that there was a sale agreement between Harishankar Mishra and late T.R. Mallikarjun, no substantive evidence is placed on record and therefore the trial Court has not attached much significant to the same. In the light of above, the trial Court has specifically held that there exists a jural relationship of the landlord and tenant between the petitioners and the respondents.
14. What is argued before this Court by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners is that, the mandatory provision of sub Section 43 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 has not been complied with, when nothing came in the way of the respondents therein to file an application under Section 43 of the Karnataka Rent Act and request to decide the aspect regarding the relationship of the landlord and tenant first. Having not done so at the earliest, they cannot turn round and say that there exists no jural relationship of landlord and tenant, at this stage.
15. Much reliance has been placed on Section 4 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 which mandates that the tenancy agreement is to be in writing after coming into force the Karnataka Rent Act w.e.f. 31.12.2001. In the present case, the tenancy has commenced in the year 2004. But the existence of tenancy is specifically made out in the written reply got issued by Smt. Bindu Mishra vide Ex. P6 does not the case of other petitioners. They were not connected with Smt. Bindu Mishra in any manner and they have not authorized Smt. Bindu Mishra to issue such legal notice, even otherwise under Karnataka Rent Act, 1999. No prior notice need to be issued to file an eviction petition under Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 since, it is a specifically statue regarding eviction. The trial Court has considered the case of the parties in right perspective. No perversity or illegality is found in the present petitions.
16. Three months time have been granted by the learned Judge directing the tenants to quit, vacate and handover vacant possession of the respective suit schedule property to the respondents. Admittedly, it is very difficult to find alternative residential or commercial building in a city like Bangalore where the rates of rent are quite substantially high. In this view of the matter, reasonable time has to be given for the revision petitioners to find alternative accommodation, both, to be used as residence and as well as for commercial purpose.
17. Apart from this, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners has vehemently argued that one of the residential premises in the 3rd floor of the building is vacant and no acceptable evidence is placed on record by the landlord showing that the said portion is unsuitable. Whether the said portion is suitable or not is left to the decision of the landlord and tenant cannot dictate terms to the landlord/s. In this view of the matter, no good grounds are made out to interfere with the well considered orders. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
"(a) All these three petitions are dismissed.
(b) Time is granted till 29.02.2016 to the revision petitioners to quit, vacate and hand over the vacant possession to the respondents, subject to the condition that the petitioners shall pay a sum of Rs. 500/- more than the monthly rent being paid, as damages commencing from 01.03.2015 till their vacant.
(c) All revision petitioners shall file a separate affidavit undertaking to abide by the conditions imposed by this Court and also to undertake not to seek any more time after the expiry of the time granted by this Court."
Parties to bear their own costs.
