RESHMI BAI Vs. SHA PREMCHAND PRAKASHCHAND AND COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner in HRC No. 3/2014 on the file of the Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru. She sought eviction of the respondents from the residential premises bearing No. 124/1 in property No. 124, situated at Sri Dharmarayaswamy Temple Cross Road, Nagarthpet, Bengaluru, measuring East to West 32.7' and North to South 23.9', i.e., 773.84 square feet (hereinafter referred to as 'schedule premises'). The petitioner stated that the respondents are the tenants in respect of the schedule premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 375/-. The petitioner required the said premises for her own use. She is staying in a rented premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 10,000/-. She has a married son and another son of marriageable age. The rented house in which she is staying is situate opposite to the schedule premises. There is no good understanding between her and her daughter-in-law and therefore she wants to shift her residence to the schedule premises. On 25-8-2008 she issued a notice terminating the tenancy. Thereafter, she instituted original suit O.S. No. 245/2009 for evicting the respondents. The plaint in the said suit was ordered to be returned as the original suit in the City Civil Court was not maintainable as it did not have pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Then, the petitioner represented the plaint in the Court of Small Causes where the suit was numbered as S.C. No. 1596/2011. In the Small Causes Court respondents appeared and filed written statement contending that even that suit was not maintainable in view of the schedule premises being a residential one though situated in a commercial area. This was the reason for the petitioner to institute proceedings under Karnataka Rent Act, 1999.

(2.) The respondents did not appear in the Court below. Thereafter, the husband of the petitioner adduced evidence as P.W. 1 in the capacity of power of attorney holder of the petitioner. He produced six documents as per Exs. P. 1 to P. 6. After assessing the evidence, the Court below arrived at a conclusion that merely because the respondents were placed ex parte, the petitioner could not walk away with the decree unless her case is established by producing cogent and satisfactory material. To arrive at this conclusion the Trial Court has expressed an opinion that the petitioner has not proved the cause of action to seek eviction of the respondents. It has also given reasons that the petitioner issued notice to the respondents on 25-8-2008 and she instituted the petition for eviction after lapse of five years. It is also observed that though the petitioner makes a reference to SC No. 1596/2011 and O.S. No. 245/2009, she has not stated about the outcome in these two suits. Therefore, the petitioner has failed to prove her case.

(3.) I have perused the documents produced by the petitioner which are marked as Exs. P. 1 to P. 6. The petitioner is stated to be the absolute owner of the schedule property. She has produced absolute sale deed dated 15-5-2004 marked as Ex. P. 2. Ex. P. 3 is the encumbrance certificate. Ex. P. 4 is the written statement filed by the respondents in O.S. No. 245/2009. If the said written statement is read, it appears that the respondents being the defendants in the suit took up a contention that the landlords of the schedule premises was M/s. Raja Silk House (Private) Limited. If Ex. P. 2 is perused what becomes clear is that M/s. Raja Silk House (Private) Limited sold the property to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner became the absolute owner. If according to the respondents there was no attornment of tenancy in their favour, it should have contested the eviction proceeding. Rather they chose not to contest. Therefore, the assertion of the petitioner that she is the landlord becomes acceptable and it has remained unassailed. The Trial Court should have come to this conclusion.