HAJI IQBAL SHARIFF Vs. C MANJULA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THOUGH the matters are listed for preliminary hearing in "b" group, by consent of both the learned Counsel heard and disposed of finally by this common order.

(2.) THE petitioner in both the writ petitions are the tenants before the II Additional Small Causes judge, at Bangalore in HRC No. 463/ 2003. The petitioners in both the cases filed Application i. A. 4 under Section 43 of the Karnataka Rent Act 1999, to stay all further proceedings and direct the parties to approach the competent Court of civil jurisdiction to declare that their respective rights. Whereas I. A. No. VII is filed under Section 151 of C. P. C praying to recall the order dated 22/11/2005 and permit him to cross-examine P. W. 1.

(3.) BRIEF facts leading to these cases are that the respondent in both the cases is none other than the daughter of Sri S. Chandrashekar, who is the owner of the petition schedule premises. The respondent was in occupation of the entire first floor measuring 55 x 24 feet and she purchased the southern side half portion in the first floor. The petitioner herein entered into an agreement with the father of respondent Chandrashekar on 25/6/2001. Consequently, Chandrashekar father of the respondent sold the said property in favour of respondent under registered sale deed dated 23/7/2001. Therefore, respondent herein filed H. R. C. No. 463/03 under Section 27 (r) of the karnataka Rent Act 1999 with a prayer to direct the respondent to vacate and hand over vacant portion of the schedule premises bearing No. 53 New. 53 (3) 1st floor 2nd main New tharagupet, Bangalore, and the petitioner herein being the respondent has resisted the said h. R. C. During the pendency of the said H. R. C petition, the petitioner herein filed an application under Section 43 of K. R. Act, 1999 to stay all further proceedings mainly on the ground that the respondent Smt. C. Manjula is not entitled to get any relief and there is no relationship of landlord and tenant. At no point of time, he has paid any rents to the petitioner nor had he entered into any lease deed or agreement with the respondent and she is totally a stranger to him. But the respondent resisted the said application and after hearing both the parties the trial Court has come to the conclusion that the petitioner was a tenant under her father the vendor of petition schedule premises and lease agreement was entered into between the petitioner and earlier owner chandrashekar. Therefore, Sub-section (1) of Section 43 of the K. R. Act the lease agreement entered into between the parties and if the tenants once admit that he was a tenant under vendor of the purchaser of the petitioner, then it would be treated as tenant. There is jural relationship of landlord and tenant. Therefore, on that ground the trial Court has rightly dismissed the I. A. No.