KAMALAMMA MUCKANNAPPA Vs. G S PANDURANGA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order of the Additional Civil Judge, Bangalore, whereby he has rejected an application of the petitioner-landlord under S.29(4) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, inasmuch as he directed that there was a dispute of the respondent being a tenant and unless that dispute was resolved, no jurisdiction could be exercised under S.29(4) . The question arises in this manner. The petitioner-landlord filed an eviction petition under S.21(1) proviso (a) and (h) seeking the relief of delivery of possession against the respondent-tenant. It was stated that there was no dispute as to the rent payable which was at a monthly rate of Rs.275. Upto 26-2-1973 when the petition was filed, a sum of Rs.2,750 was due and payable. The respondent-tenant filed his counter statement and pleaded that the petitioner is not the owner of the premises and that he is not even his tenant. It was further pleaded that so much amount of rent was not due as considerable amount was paid by the tenant towards the house tax, water and electric charges. According to the respondent, he is the Secretary of a school by name New Horizon school which is being run in the premises. The school is a registered body under the Societies Registration Act and has a legal entity of its own. On this ground, the plea was founded that the respondent by name G. S. Panduranga Rao being the Secretary of the school was not the tenant. Although this plea was not initially incorporated in the petition but subsequently it was sought to be brought as a result of amendment to the petition. The court allowed the amendment and therefore it is as good a plea as if taken initially in the petition. During the course of the trial, the respondent-tenant deposited a sum of Rs. 2,520 which was withdrawn by the petitioner-landlord. It is, however, submitted that until the date of the filing of I.A.13, which is the petition under the present dispute, a sum of Rs. 9,580 has fallen due, as arrears of rent.

(2.) Before the learned Civil Judge, the respondent-tenant filed I.A.9 and contended that a preliminary issue be framed so that the question of the respondent being a tenant be decided in the first instance. Only thereafter, the main petition for eviction could proceed. The learned Civil Judge dismissed that petition. In his opinion, the question involved would necessarily lead to evidence which could as well be regarded in respect of the remaining issues that arise between the parties. The petitioner-landlord has also opposed that application. Against the order of the learned Civil Judge, it is stated by the learned counsel for the respondent, that the tenant came in revision before the High Court, but ultimately withdrew that revision. Therefore, the decision made by the learned Civil Judge that all the issues be decided at one stage became final between the parties.

(3.) Thereafter, I.A.13 was filed by the petitioner-landlord on 5-1-1976 with a specific prayer that under S.29 (4), the proceedings are required to be stopped and an order is to be made directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession. The learned Civil Judge has held that until the dispute regarding status of the respondent being a tenant is decided, the court will have no jurisdiction to entertain such a petition. Therefore, the learned Civil Judge has dismissed the petition and the present revision is directed against that order.