KEMPAMMA Vs. B.H.RAGHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER aggrieved by the order dt. 6/11/2012 in HRC No. 265/11 of the Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore, rejecting the application under Sec.43 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, has presented this petition.

(2.) RESPONDENT instituted HRC No. 265/11 for eviction of the petitioner arraigned as respondent therein from the petition schedule premises. That petition was opposed by filing statement of objections interalia denying the jural relationship of Landlord and tenant, contending that one Muniswamy N., the owner of the petition schedule premises though put her in possession of the said property as a tenant, nevertheless, executed an agreement of sale by receiving a consideration of Rs.70,000.00, specific performance of which is subject- matter of O.S.6594/11 and in which the eviction petitioner is also arraigned as a defendant. Before the rent court, the petitioner filed I.A. under Sec.43 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, to stop all further proceeding and direct the parties to approach the competent court of civil jurisdiction for declaration of their rights. That application was opposed contending that the eviction petitioner, respondent herein purchased the petition schedule premises from Smt.Lakshmi Devi, widow of deceased N.Muniswamy, following which the revenue records were transferred into the name of the purchaser and taxes are being paid. The eviction petitioner asserted that there was a rent agreement dt. 10/12/1998 between N.Muniswamy & the tenant pursuant to which was inducted into the petition schedule premises on a monthly rental of Rs.600.00 apart from payment of an advance of Rs.10,000.00. The rent court having regard to the pleadings of the parties framed a point for consideration as to whether petitioner proves the existence of jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties? The rent court having regard to the material on record, more appropriately Ex.P1, the sale deed executed by Smt. Lakshmi Devi, the widow of N.Muniswamy in favour of the eviction petitioner and revenue records such as khatha certificate, etc., Ex.P2 to P6 and the rent agreement dt. 10/12/1998, Ex.P7 between N.Muniswamy the husband of the vendor of the eviction petitioner and the tenant pursuant to which the tenant was inducted in the petition schedule premises on monthly rental of Rs.600.00 with an advance amount of Rs.10,000.00, recorded a finding that prima facie there was a material to establish the jural relationship of Landlord and tenant between the parties. The rent court following the reported opinion of this court ANR.1, accordingly answered in the affirmative the point for consideration and by the order impugned, rejected the application.

(3.) THE plea of the petitioner that while as a tenant in respect of the petition schedule premises, an agreement of sale was executed by the landlord N.Muniswamy in her favour and therefore the tenant claims that her lesser interest as a tenant got extinguished and blossomed itself in to a larger interest namely that of a purchaser, whereby the petitioner is no more a tenant, deserves rejection. The Apex Court in JOSEPH KANTHARAJ & ANR. VS. ATTHARUNNISA BEGUM S.; 2010 (3) Karl.L.J. 182 (SC) observed thus: