GANGADHAR NAYAK Vs. ANANTH G. PAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This HRRP is filed challenging the order dtd. 20/12/2018 passed in Rent Revision Petition No.15/2018 on the file of III Additional District and Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangaluru and also praying the Court to set aside the order passed on I.A.No.V in HRC No.21/2011 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge, Mangaluru, D.K.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case before the Trial Court is that the respondent in this revision petition had filed the eviction petition and the same is numbered as HRC No.21/2011 and sought for an order of eviction under the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 (for short 'the Act of 1999') on the ground that he requires the premises to construct a godown and for expansion of his business and the premises is also old one and it may collapse at any time. The petitioner herein has filed the objection statement denying the relationship between them contending that there is no landlord and tenant relationship between them and sought for an order of dismissal of the petition and an interlocutory application has been filed invoking Sec. 43 of the Act and the same was numbered as I.A.No.V. An enquiry was held and the respondent herein examined as PW1 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P18 and the petitioner herein has examined as RW1 and got marked the documents at Ex.R1 to R8. The Trial Court after considering the material on record held that there is a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and rejected the application vide order dtd. 13/7/2018. As against the said order, the revision petition was filed under Sec. 46 of the Act of 1999 challenging the order passed on I.A.No.V. The revision Court also dismissed the said petition vide order dtd. 20/12/2018. Hence, being aggrieved by the said order, the present revision petition is filed under Sec. 115 of CPC.

(3.) The main contention of the revision petitioner herein that both the Trial Court as well as the revisional Court have committed an error in holding that there is a landlord and tenant relationship between the parties but there is no existence of such relationship between them and the respondent herein has not produced any document of lease or rent receipt to prove the said fact and there was no suggestion to the petitioner that there exists a landlord and tenant relationship. Hence, both the Courts have committed an error. It is contended that Rent Court does not have jurisdiction to pass an order of eviction unless the jural relationship of tenant and landlord is established and the Trial Court and the revisional Court has not considered this aspect and erroneously dismissed the application and revision and hence, it requires interference.