S KRISHNA SWAMY Vs. VANI PRASANNAKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short question that arises for consideration is: whether there exists landlord and tenant relationship between the Petitioner and Respondent herein?

(2.) THE brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the Revision Petition may be stated as under: on 20. 6. 1993, the Respondent deposited a sum of Rs. 1,60,000/- with petitioner's father and occupied the petition schedule premises for three years, as per the agreement for mortgage with possession (in short 'the agreement') with a condition 'no INTEREST NO RENT' basis. On 30. 10. 1996 the petitioner's father settled the premises under a registered deed of settlement in favour of the petitioner. Thereafter, the Petitioner issued a legal notice to the Respondent calling upon him to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the petition schedule premises in favour of the Petitioner as the 3 years period expired on 19. 6. 1996, but in vain. Therefore, the Petitioner filed an eviction petition in H. R. C. No. 578/2000 against the respondent under Section 21 (1) (h)of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (in short, 'the Old Rent Act' ). The Respondent entered appearance through his advocate and filed objections contending that the relationship between them is that of debtor and creditor and not landlord and tenant relationship, and the petitioner has no bonafide requirement of the premises. The Petitioner got marked Ex. P1 to P3, during examination in chief, and the cross-examination of P. W-1 was deferred. At this stage, the Respondent filed an application under Section 151 of the Code of civil Procedure contending that the Petition is not maintainable as there is no jural relationship of landlord and tenant. The Petitioner/landlord filed objections. The Learned Trial Judge, after hearing arguments, answered the point in favour of the respondent holding that there is no jural relationship of landlord and tenant between them and therefore dismissed the eviction petition under Section 43 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999. This is impugned in this revision petition.

(3.) THE Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the impugned order is contrary to the decision of this Court rendered in Ramdhan Puri v. Bankey Bihari Saran and Ors. ILR 1958 KAR 3741 and K. Amarnath v. Smt. Puttamma ILR1999 kar 4634 , 2000 (4 )Karlj55.