@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
B.S. Patil, J@mdashThis revision petition is filed under Section 18 of the Karnataka Small Causes Court Act, challenging the judgment dated 13.07.2015 passed in Small Cause Case No. 897/2012.
2. Petitioner was the defendant in the suit. Respondent herein filed the said suit seeking ejectment of the tenant from the suit schedule premises contending inter alia that it was the absolute owner of the property by virtue of a Will executed by one Smt. Ambamma W/o. K.P. Bhadrashetty vide Ex. P.10 on 21.09.1981. Indeed the suit had been earlier decreed. A revision petition was filed against the said order before this Court in C.R.P. No. 69/2014. The said revision petition was allowed on 28.01.2015 and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration with regard to the question whether plaintiff was a religious and charitable institution so that it could maintain the suit before the Small Causes Court by availing remedy under the provisions of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 (for short the Act''). That is how the Court below has passed the impugned judgment after remand.
3. Main contention of the plaintiff was that it had passed a resolution to terminate the tenancy of the defendant. Plaintiff traced the relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant to the document dated 10.01.1984 wherein defendant''s mother Smt. Yellamma W/o Shamanna had executed a rent agreement with a stipulation to pay rental of Rs. 30/- which was later on enhanced to Rs. 100/-. It was urged that a legal notice was issued on 02.04.2012 terminating the tenancy and inspite of the legal notice, when the defendant did not vacate the premises, plaintiff was constrained to file the suit.
4. Defendant contested the proceedings. He denied ownership of the plaintiff over the suit property and the rental agreement executed by his mother. It was urged by the defendant that his grand father had taken possession of the suit property under a mortgage deed dated 21.10.1944 through one Channappa and Mallappa and therefore, plaintiff had no right over the suit property and was not entitled to maintain the suit.
5. Based on the respective contentions and the order of remand made, question that fell for consideration before the Court below was, whether the plaintiff was able to establish that it was the owner of the property and was a charitable and religious institution exempted under the Act and hence entitled to maintain the suit?
6. For the plaintiff, Secretary of the plaintiff - Sangha was examined as P.W. 1. Exs. P.1 to P. 15 were produced and marked. Indeed, after remand from the High Court, during the course of further evidence, plaintiff got marked Exs. P.16 to P43. Defendant examined himself as D.W. 1 and produced and marked Exs. D1 to D.14.
7. The Court below has held that plaintiff was able to establish the relationship of landlord and tenant and that it was a religious and charitable institution exempted from filing HRC petition under the Act. To arrive at this conclusion, the Court below has placed reliance on the contents of the Will executed by Smt. Ambamma in favour of the plaintiff and several other documents including documents - Exs. P.16 to P.21. Apart from the same, it has referred to and relied upon the judgments rendered by this Court in HRRP No. 1848/96 and HRRP No. 1418/1995 clubbed with HRRP No. 1550/94 wherein this Court had an occasion to observe the nature and character of the plaintiff - Sangha as a charitable institution. It has also placed reliance on the audit reports produced at Exs. P.31 to P.37 whereunder it was shown that plaintiff - Sangha had spent most of the amount towards pooja and other expenses disclosing that it was engaged in religious activities carrying on religious functions.
8. As regards the assertion of the defendant that he was the sub-mortgagee and was in possession of the property in his own right, the Court below has placed reliance on the rent deed and the evidence on record including the versions of P.W. 1 and D.W. 1 to record the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant to decree the suit.
9. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that there are no averments in the plaint with regard to the nature and character of the plaintiff as religious or charitable institution. Therefore, in the absence of plaint averments to this effect, the Court below was not right and justified in assuming jurisdiction. He has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
10. It is his next contention that in the deposition of P.W. 1, there is nothing to show that plaintiff was a religious institution and indeed in the cross-examination of P.W. 1, he has admitted that the plaintiff was not a religious or charitable institution. He has further contended that the documents - Ex. P.16 to P.22 were simply marked in evidence and therefore, they cannot be treated as having been proved.
11. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has strongly supported the order passed. He has taken me through the pleadings and the evidence on record to contend that even as per the evidence of D.W. 1, relationship of landlord and tenant has been admitted. He urges that in the original mortgage deed created during the year 1919 there was no measurement mentioned nor the property number was mentioned but in the sub-mortgage deed created on 21.10.1944, number of the property has been mentioned as 58 and boundaries were also mentioned which were not found in the original mortgage deed. Therefore, it is his submission that description of the property in the mortgage created on 21.10.1944 has no relevance and connection with the mortgage executed in the year 1919. He takes the Court through the various documents produced to substantiate and support the finding recorded by the Court below that plaintiff was indeed a charitable and religious institution.
12. Having heard the learned counsel for both parties and on careful perusal of the pleadings and the evidence on record and the findings recorded by the Court below, the questions that fall for consideration are:
"a. Whether findings of the Court below regarding the nature and character of the plaintiff as a religious and charitable institution suffers from illegality and is not supportable from the evidence on record?
b. Whether the findings regarding the establishment of relationship of landlord and tenant are sustainable?"
13. Ex. P.10 - Will is executed by Smt. Ambamma bequeathing her property in favour of the plaintiff. In the said document, she has stated that she was bequeathing the property in favour of the plaintiff - Sangha for the purpose of utilizing the same for religious functions, such as, offerings for Someshwara Swamy Temple apart from catering to the needs of the people of her community. The Court below has taken note of the purpose of the bequest made in Ex. P.10 along with the nature of the functions that the plaintiff was carrying on to come to the conclusion that it was an institution carrying on religious and charitable functions.
14. After the matter was remanded from this Court, the plaintiff has produced Ex. P16 to P.21. Ex. P. 17 is a receipt issued by the Registrar of Societies, Gandhi Nagar, Bangalore dated 13.11.2013 wherein it is acknowledged that for the period from 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2013 the account had been submitted along with the list of committee members in respect of Sree Someshwara Swamy Veerashaiva Samaja Seva Sangha with the required fee of Rs. 1200/-. Exs. P.18 and P.19 contain the rules governing the Sangha. Ex. P.20 is produced to show that celebrations were held during the relevant period for celebrating some religious functions in connection with Sree Someshwara Swamy Veerashaiva Samaja Seva Sangha in a place known as Arunachaleshwara Prarthana Mandira.
15. The Court below has examined these documents. It has come to the conclusion that the recitals in the Will, purpose of the bequest made and nature of the functions discharged by the plaintiff that too in connection with the Someshwaraswamy Temple and to cater to the needs of the students belonging to the particular community of the person who bequeathed the property partook the characteristic of religious and charitable purpose and therefore, the plaintiff was entitled to maintain the suit and was exempted from the provisions of the Act.
16. In addition to this, the Court below has rightly referred to the decision of this Court involving the very plaintiff, at the instance of another tenant wherein this Court had an occasion to hold that plaintiff herein was a religious and charitable institution. The combined effect of all these documents have been taken into consideration to return a finding that plaintiff is a religious and charitable institution. I do not find any illegality in this finding. The finding is based on the documentary and oral evidence adduced. Hence, as I do not find any illegality in the finding so recorded, in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction under Section 18 of the Small Causes Court Act the said finding cannot be interfered with.
17. Insofar as relationship of landlord and tenant, the rent document which has been produced and relied upon has been admitted in evidence by D.W. 1. This document establishes the relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant. Therefore, the Court below has rightly answered the said question also in favour of the plaintiff.
18. The judgments on which learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance with regard to the determination of the jurisdiction of the Court based on the allegations in the plaint have no application to the facts of the present case. In the instant case, the totality of the pleadings and the evidence on record have been taken note of by the Court below pursuant to the direction issued by the High Court while remanding the matter and the Court below has examined the character of the plaintiff Sangh, as already referred to above, with reference to the earlier decision rendered and the documents produced. Therefore, the contentions urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted.
19. Hence, this revision petition is dismissed.
20. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that petitioner has been in occupation of the premises for several years, I deem it just and appropriate to grant six months time to the revision petitioner to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the suit property, subject to payment of rent and subject to an undertaking being given before this Court that he will vacate the premises on or before 08.03.2016. An affidavit in this regard shall be filed before the Court within two weeks.
