LAWS(KAR)-1995-1-30

SHANKUNTALA BHAT Vs. AJIT KUMAR

Decided On January 30, 1995
SHANKUNTALA BHAT Appellant
V/S
AJIT KUMAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the respondent. The learned Counsel for the petitioner relying on the decisions reported in AIR 1987 Kant 1 (K. Shantharam v. A. Rama Amin) and ILR (1993) Kant 3359 (Panalal Jain v. Brhmadev Sharma), submitted that whenever jural relationship between the parties is in dispute, the Court has to decide that issue along with the main petition, as otherwise it would amount to deciding the question of title as a preliminary issue. In Panalal Jain v. Brhmadev Sharma, ILR (1993) Kant 3359 this Court has opined that whenever there is denial of relationship of landlord and tenant, the matter would require substantial evidence and it would not be proper for the court to try it as a preliminary issue.

(2.) In the instant case the eviction petition is filed under Section 21(1)(h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act by the respondent-landlord. The petitioner disputes the jural relationship. In other words, she denies that the respondent is her landlord. According to her, she is in possession of the premises as mortgagee. During the pendency of the petition in the trial Court, an application under Section 29 of the K. R.C. Act has been filed by the respondent. It appears evidence has been let in by the petitioner as well as by the respondent. At this stage, an application purporting to be under Order 14, Rule 2, C.P.C., has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer that Section 29 application may be considered along with the main petition. The trial court has dismissed the said application. This revision is presented against the said order.

(3.) According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner while considering Section 29 application, the disputed question of relationship between the petitioner and the respondent cannot be determined as a preliminary issue. For the purpose of ascertaining whether the petitioner is really in arrears of rent as a tenant under the respondent, the Court has to decide the relationship between the parties.