Smt. Shankuntala Bhat Vs. Ajit Kumar

Smt. Shankuntala Bhat vs Ajit Kumar

Type Court Judgment Court Karnataka Decided Jan 30, 1995

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/373344

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/373344
Court: Karnataka High Court
Judge: G.P. Shivaprakash, J.
Decided On: Jan 30, 1995
Case Number: H.R.R.P. No. 98 of 1995
Subject: Tenancy

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- KARNATAKA LAND REFORMS ACT, 1961.[K.A. No. 10/1962]. Section 48A: [H.V.G. Ramesh, J] Rejection of Form No.7 Vesting of land in the State under Section 44 No notice to purchasers who had purchased the lands in the year 1967 and subsequently Order of vesting of land passed by the Land Tribunal Held, The purchaser...

Key legal issue: Tenancy
Acts & sections: Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 - Sections 21 and 29; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Order 14, Rule 2

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Smt. Shankuntala Bhat

Advocate Urval N. Ramanand, Adv.

Respondent

Ajit Kumar

Advocate G.M. Paramashivaiah, Adv.

Legal References

Acts: Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 - Sections 21 and 29; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Order 14, Rule 2
Reported In: AIR1996Kant293; ILR1995KAR634; 1995(2)KarLJ599

Excerpt

.....to that are entitled to be informed by the land tribunal about the order of rejection of form no. 7 and the order of vesting. hence, the matter requires reconsideration for want of due notice to the petitioners. -- karnataka land revenue act, 1964.[k.a. no. 12/1964]. sections 128 & 129: [h.v.g. ramesh, j] registering of mutations and register of disputed cases held, it is needles to say it is duty bound on the part of the revenue authorities and the sub-registrar as per section128(4) to invariably intimate the fact of transfer of interest or ownership from the first party to the second party to the concerned revenue authorities so that concerned revenue authorities will make the mutation entries in the concerned register and also proper entries in the revenue register after following the procedure as per section129 of the act. further, it is noticed that there is a serious lapse on the part of the revenue authorities and also on the part of the registering authorities for non-compliance of provisions of sections128 and 129 of the act . on facts, held, in the present case, it is noticed that on such transfer being made by the 4th respondent venkata rao to rachaiah swamy who had filed a petition originally, no such entries are being made in the revenue records which ultimately resulted in the land tribunal not issuing notice to rachaiah swamy who had purchased the property and who ought to have been heard in the matter when them after was pending before the land tribunal. instead, notice was once again sent to the original owner although he had no interest in the property which resulted in miscarriage of justice. - it appears evidence has been let in by the petitioner as well as by the respondent......petitioner is really in arrears of rent as a tenant under the respondent, the court has to decide the relationship between the parties.4. the learned counsel for the petitioner sri urval n. ramananda contended that since the application under section 29 of the act is in the nature of interlocutory application, considering the question of jural relationship between the parties at this stage would amount to considering the said question as a preliminary issue.5. it is true that section 29 application, cannot be sustained independent of the main petition, but the mere fact that that application emanates from the main petition, would not make it an interlocutory application in its ordinary connotation. the provisions of section 29 of the act is subsidiary to the main provisions in the act. it is an integral part of the main provisions but remains dormant till it is activated, as is evident fromseveral provisions of the act including section 21(2) of, the act, which inter alia provides, that no order for recovery of possession of any premises shall be made on the ground specified in clause (a) of the proviso to sub-section (1), if the tenant complies with the provisions of section 29.6. if the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner were to be accepted it would render the provisions of section 29 of the act nugatory in all cases where the tenant denies the jural relationship/title of the landlord to the premises in question.7. for the foregoing reasons, this petition is rejected at the admission stage. it is open for the petitioner to approach this court again if the order on section 29 application goesagainst him.8. order accordingly.

Full Judgment

ORDER

1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the respondent. The learned Counsel for the petitioner relying on the decisions reported in : AIR1987 Kant1 (K. Shantharam v. A. Rama Amin) and : ILR 1993 KAR3359 (Panalal Jain v. Brhmadev Sharma), submitted that when ever 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 KAR3359 this Court has opined that whenever there is denial of relationship of landlord and tenant, the matter would require substantial evidenceand it would not be proper for the court to tryit 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.

4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri Urval N. Ramananda contended that since the application under Section 29 of the Act is in the nature of interlocutory application, considering the question of jural relationship between the parties at this stage would amount to considering the said question as a preliminary issue.

5. It is true that Section 29 application, cannot be sustained independent of the main petition, but the mere fact that that application emanates from the main petition, would not make it an interlocutory application in its ordinary connotation. The provisions of Section 29 of the Act is subsidiary to the main provisions in the Act. It is an integral part of the main provisions but remains dormant till it is activated, as is evident fromseveral provisions of the Act including Section 21(2) of, the Act, which inter alia provides, that no order for recovery of possession of any premises shall be made on the ground specified in clause (a) of the proviso to sub-section (1), if the tenant complies with the provisions of Section 29.

6. If the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner were to be accepted it would render the provisions of Section 29 of the Act nugatory in all cases where the tenant denies the jural relationship/title of the landlord to the premises in question.

7. For the foregoing reasons, this petition is rejected at the admission stage. It is open for the petitioner to approach this Court again if the order on Section 29 application goesagainst him.

8. Order accordingly.

Same Court & Year Karnataka · 1995 Same Parties Smt. Shankuntala Bhat vs Ajit Kumar Same Subject Tenancy Same Judge G.P. Shivaprakash, J. Acts & Sections Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 - Sections 21 and 29; Code o...

Tenancy