SURYAKANT KASHIBHAI PATEL Vs. S C CHAVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Sec.50 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), is by the landlord. The petitioner is aggrieved by the rejection o,f his application filed under S.29(4) of the Act, by holding that the relationship of landlord and tenant had not been established, by the III Addl. Munsiff, Belgaum in HRC.228/1972.

(2.) A few facts are relevant to be mentioned. The landlord purchased the premises from its previous owner on 28-8-1972. At that time the respondent herein was already a tenant of the said premises. The previous landord issued a notice of attornment to the respondent, produced and marked as Ex.P3. Notwithstanding the said intimation, the tenant for some reason best known to himself, tendered the rent to the previous landlord in respect of the period subsequent to the date of purchase by the petitioner. The previous landlord very rightly refused to accept the rent and it is also alleged that he orally intimated the respondent that he should pay the rents thereafter to the petitioner.The respondent failed to pay the rents. The petitioner therefore instituted the proceedings for eviction under the appropriate provisions of the Act. After the petition was filed, the petitioner filed an application purporting to be under S.29(4) of the Act requesting for stoppage of proceedings and for a direction that the tenant shoud vacate and deliver possession of the premises in accordance with law. At that stage, the respondent lodged his objection one of which has been that there was no relationship of tenancy between him and the landlord. The Court purporting to enquire into that objection, held that the very sale in favour of the petitioner bad not been proved and therefore there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The application therefore under S.29(4) of the Act came to be rejected. (IA. No III).

(3.) On behalf of the petitioner Shri P. P. Muthanna the learned Counsel, submitted that the trial Court had clearly exceeded its jurisdiction in pronquncing upon the validity of the sale in favour of the petitioner and therefore the petitioner could not have become the landlord of the respondent in respect of the suit premises. On behalf of the respondent, Shri A.V.Albal, the learned Counsel, principally contended that this petition was premature and at any rate the petitioner not having approached the first appellate Court under S: 48 of the Act, was not entitled to maintain any petition under S.50 of the Act. In support of his submission, strong reliance was placed on the decision of a learned single Judge of this Court in GunduRao Prahlad v, Channawwa (1973) 1 Mys.L.J. 358.