Shantaveerappa Vs. Gangaram Hemajeppa Kalal and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
transfer of property act, 1882 - sections 108(q) and 111(h) - landlord determining tenancy under - though hrc act of 1961 inapplicable to premises, landlord pleading for bona fide requirement - termination of lease being valid, landlord entitled to possession of premises & establishment of bona fide requirement held, not required.; therefore the termination of lease being valid, the respondents are bound to put the lessor in possession of the premises as demanded in the suit and therefore the appellant had to succeed. the learned civil judge has gone wrong in holding that because of failure on the part of the appellant to establish his bonafide requirement, he is to be denied the relief of possession prayed for by him. - section 138 & 139: [arali nagaraj, j] presumption that holder received cheque for discharge of debt held, the presumption under section 139 of the act extends only to the issuing of cheque towards discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability and it has to be raised only after the complaint establishes that such debt or liability in fact existed as on the date of the cheque in question and that the cheque was given to him by the accused. therefore, since the very fact that the complainant lent to the accused a loan of rs.70,000/- and the accused issued in favour of the complaint and delivered to her cheque for the said loan amount of rs. 70,000/- have not been established by the complainant, no presumption under section 139 of n.1 act could be raised in favour of the complainant that the said cheque was issued by the accused towards discharge of the alleged loan amount. - the learned civil judge has gone wrong in holding that because of failure on the part of the appellant to establish his bonafide requirement, he is to be denied the relief of possession prayed for by him.a.b. murgod, j.1. the appellant is the owner of the residential premises in the village called akki-alur in hangal taluk. plaintiff is the appellant before this court. he is the owner of residential premises bearing no. tpc 550 of akki-alur in hangal taluk. one gangaram hemajappa kalal was the original tenant under the appellant and he died during the pendency of the proceedings and his legal representatives are brought on record and they are the respondents. the appellant issued quit notice under section 111 transfer of property act and ultimately terminated the lease and suit for ejectment of the tenant therein was filed in o.s. no. 34 of 1970 on the file of the learned munsiff, nangal. the appellant incidentally mentioned that the premises were required for his bonafide use.2. the respondent-tenant contested the suit before the learned munsiff, hangal, challenging the validity of the termination of the lease as also the quantum of rent. respondent also traversed the allegation that the premises were required for bonafide occupation.3. the learned munsiff held in favour of the landlord appellant on the questions of validity of termination of the lease as also bonafide requirement of the premises and passed a decree for ejectment against the respondent4. the respondent preferred an appeal bearing r.a. 16 of 1980 in the court of civil judge, haveri against the judgment and decree of the munsiff hangal in o.s. no. 34 of 1978. the learned civil judge agreeing with the finding of the validity of the termination of the lease of the premises in favour of the respondent, held that appellant had not established his bonafide requirement of the premises and on that ground reversed the decree for ejectment. hence, this appeal.5. this court while admitting the appeal on 30-11-1982 raised the following substantial question of law:-whether the first appellate court was justified, in applying the provisions of the rent control act, when the suit was under t.p. act 6. when the appeal was heard by this court on 20th august 1992 the substantial question of law framed on 30th november, 1982 some-how was missed and the judgment was delivered reversing the judgment and decree made by the learned civil judge in appeal, the supreme court has remanded the appeal for fresh disposal.7. the counsel on both sides have been heard, it is an admitted fact that the suit instituted by the appellant in the court munsiff, hangal was under the provisions of the transfer of property act, 1882. the property in dispute is situated in akki-alur village to which admittedly the provisions of the karnataka rent control act, 1961 do not apply. therefore the question of bonafide requirement of the premises for appellant's use was not a matter that was required to be gone into. it appears the appellant incidentally or inadvertently referred to the requirement of the premises for his bonafide occupation but the appellant was not required to prove that averment of bonafide requirement of the premises for a decree of eviction. in a suit under the provisions of the transfer of property act, under section 108 of the transfer of property act, 1882 under clause (q), on the determination of the lease the lessee is bound to put the lessor into possession of the property. section 111 transfer of property act which deals with determination of lease states that lease of immovable property determines on the expiration of a notice to determine the lease, or to quit, or of intention to quit the property leased, duly given by one party to the other.8. the appellant in this case averred that he had validly determined the lease in favour of the respondent in respect of the premises involved. though the validity of the termination of the lease was challenged, both the courts-below have concurrently held against the respondent on that aspect. therefore the termination of lease being valid, the respondents are bound to put the lessor in possession of the premises as demanded in the suit and therefore the appellant had to succeed. the learned civil judge has gone wrong in holding that because of failure on the part of the appellant to establish his bonafide requirement, he is to be denied the relief of possession prayed for by him. the learned civil judge has over-looked the difference between a suit for ejectment under the provisions of the transfer of property act and a petition for possession of the premises from a tenant under the karnataka rent control act. therefore the decree made by the learned civil judge being unsustainable is set aside by allowing the appeal and the decree made by the learned munsiff, hangal regarding ejectment is restored with costs. the substantial question of law raised in this appeal is answered in the negative.9. at this stage, the learned counsel for the respondents prays for some time to vacate the premises. as submitted by the learned counsel sri k.n. patil for the appellant the decree of the learned civil judge with regard to arrears of rent is confirmed when this court earlier disposed of the matter in the year 1992. counsel for the respondents had sought time upto 1996 for vacating the premises and now that object is achieved by the respondents, the respondents are directed to vacate the premises by the end of april, 1996. the appeal accordingly succeeds to the extent indicated above.