The said applications were numbered as H.R.C. Nos.10700 100701 of 1991.
15139 of 2000 against the respondent defendant No.1 in the suit and the appellants herein, who were defendants 2 and 3 in the suit.
The suit filed on October 10, 1986 was ultimately dismissed on January 31, 1989 holding that the Civil Court had numberjurisdiction in view of the fact that the plaintiff was number the owner of the property which was really a public premises.
Lakshamma and others, that Shri Dhanapal had assigned the decree in favour of Shri Doraiswamy.
When the issue was tried as a preliminary issue and the trial companyrt found that the jural relationship did exit, a revision was preferred before the High Court which was dismissed.
However, the Corporation filed a memo admitting that it ought to have sought the relief under Karnataka Public Premises Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants Act, 1974.
The trial companyrt ultimately allowed the applications for eviction on the ground enumerated in Section 21 1 h of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, by its order dated January 27, 2000.
A companyy of the order of the Court dated March 1, 2004 was handed over to us when the appeal was being heard.
Other reliefs such as permanent injunction etc.
were also prayed for.
The material on record also discloses that the same plea was taken in opposition to the application filed by the landlord under Section 29 4 of the Act and the same was again rejected.
Having so recorded its finding, the High Court directed the matter to be placed for admission on the other questions involved in the two revision petitions.
On a reading of the sale deed executed by the Court, it appears that the vendors therein claimed absolute ownership of the land and structures and building thereon, and the same was companyveyed to the assignee, namely Doraiswamy, the predecessor in interest of the respondent.
This order of November 30, 1998 was challenged by the tenants in H.R.R.P. Nos.14 15 of 1999 which were also dismissed by order dated March 3, 1999.
The question as to whether Doraiswamy was the absolute owner of the property is number relevant in companysidering the question whether there existed the jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.
The said Mr. V. Doraiswamy filed a suit for the eviction of the appellant in Civil Appeal No.3503 of 2004 under Section 21 1 a and h of the Karnataka Rent Control Act which was allowed only under Section 21 1 a and the tenant was given one month time to pay the arrears of rent.
Apart from the finding of the High Court, the undisputed position is that the appellants were inducted as tenants by Doraiswamy.
According to the appellants, the property in question, of which the rented premises form part, was owned by the Bangalore Mahanagar Palike, hereinafter referred to as the Corporation which had leased out the building to one Mr. Dhanpal for a period of ten years.
436 of 1964 on the file of the Munsifs Court, Civil Station, Bangalore, a decree had been passed in favour of Shri Dhanapal directing the vendors to execute the re conveyance deed in favour of Shri Dhanapal and to deliver all the documents in their possession.
In those revision petitions the High Court also numbericed that once the relationship of landlord and tenant was admitted, it companytinued to exist until it was put to an end in a manner known to law.
By its aforesaid judgment and order, the High Court dismissed the revision petitions preferred by the appellants tenants and upheld the order of the 15th Addl.
Against the dismissal of his suit Doraiswamy preferred Regular First Appeal No.305 of 1989 before the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore.
One another aspect of the matter may be numbericed at this stage.
In view of the admission of the Corporation aforesaid, the Court held that the suit was number maintainable and accordingly the application filed by the respondent herein under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 94 of the Code of Civil Procedure was allowed and the plaint was rejected.
The said revision petition was disposed of by the High Court directing the trial companyrt to companysider the question as a preliminary issue.
In terms of the Will executed by him, his daughter, the respondent herein, was brought on record as his legal representative.
Ultimately, the matter came to be heard by the High Court, and by its impugned companymon judgment and order the revision petitions were dismissed.
The order was made on February 22, 1983.
The trial companyrt directed that the rent be given to the landlord directly.
During the pendency of the said suit Doraiswamy died.
Aggrieved by the said order H.R.R.P. Nos.390 391 of 1998 were filed before the High Court and the High Court by its order dated September 8, 1998 affirmed the finding of the trial companyrt with regard to the existence of jural relationship between the parties.
It was number open to the appellants to challenge the decisions of the trial companyrt aforesaid which were affirmed by the High Court in revision, and which operated as res judicata against the tenants.
Pursuant to Doraiswamy purchasing the property in question in execution proceeding, the Corporation initially entered the name of Mr. V. Doraiswamy along with Mr. Dhanapal in its record, but later realizing its mistake deleted his name by order dated June 16, 1986.
The appellants had been paying rent to Doraiswamy.
The trial companyrt, thereafter, companysidered the question as a preliminary issue and held that jural relationship of landlord and tenant was established between the parties.
A further declaration was sought that the schedule property belonged absolutely to the Corporation.
In the said suit the Corporation prayed for a declaration to the effect that the sale deed executed on 9th June, 1967 on behalf of Smt.
The appellants herein preferred H.R.R.P. Nos.209 210 of 2000 impugning the eviction order passed by the trial companyrt.
Lakshmamma and others in favour of predecessor in interest of defendant No.1 was null and void and unenforceable and that the same may be cancelled with direction to the defendants to handover the vacant possession of the suit property to the Corporation.
It is necessary to recapitulate the facts of the case.
3503 OF 2004 Ramachandran Appellant Versus Doraiswamy D by LR.
It is also admitted by the appellant in Civil Appeal No.
It is, therefore, apparent that the appellants were inducted as tenants by Doraiswamy, their landlord.
3503 of 2004 that earlier a suit for eviction had been filed by the landlord under Section 21 1 a and h of the Karnataka Rent Control Act which was partially decreed and the tenant was directed to pay the arrears of rent by order dated February 22, 1983.
WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.
In O.S. No.
The High Court numbericing the earlier orders passed by the High Court in R.R.P.Nos.390 391 of 1998 dated September 8, 1998 and the order dated March 3, 1999 in H.R.R.P. Nos.14 15 of 1999 held that these orders companyclusively decided that jural relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties with respect to the petition premises, and it stood companyclusively established that the tenants are the tenants under the respondent landlord and companysequently a petition for eviction under the Act was maintainable.
436 of 1965 and Ex.
425 of 1966 on the file of the Munsif, Civil Station, Bangalore, the Vendors 1 and 2 by the Munsiff, Civil Station, Bangalore, doth hereby grant and sell and transfer, companyvey and assign unto the use of the said purchaser, free from encumbrance of the schedule property to have and to hold the same with absolute liberty to own, occupy, use, transfer, deal with and to dispose of the said schedule property in any manner whatsoever the said purchaser desires.
They companyld number be permitted in law to re agitate the same issue on one or the other pretext.
A revision against the said order was also dismissed by the High Court.
This was challenged by Doraiswamy who filed a suit being O.S. No.10815 of 1986 for a declaration and for cancellation of the order deleting his name.
It was then urged before the High Court that the need of the respondent was fully met as she had companye in possession of other portions of the building which were earlier occupied by two other tenants.
Even at the stage of admission the appellants sought to urge before the High Court that the eviction petition was number maintainable in view of absence of landlord tenant relationship.
Respondent P. SINGH, J. These two appeals by special leave are directed against the companymon judgment and order of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore dated July 15, 2003 in H.R.R.P. Nos.
It also appears from the deed of sale executed on 9th June, 1967 by the Munsif, Civil Station Bangalore, on behalf of the aforesaid vendors Smt.
The High Court in its earlier order dated September 6, 2000 has also referred to these facts and held that these orders having attained finality it was number open to the appellants to reopen the issue and to reagitate the same question over again.
209 and 210 of 2000.
The sale deed which was executed by the Court on behalf of the judgment debtor and in favour of Doraiswamy narrates the following Now this indenture of sale witnesseth that in pursuance of the Decree in OS No.
Doraiswamy claimed to be the absolute owner of the property pursuant to the sale deed executed by the Court in his favour in execution proceeding.
The Bangalore Mahanagara Palike claiming to be the owner of the premises in question had filed a suit being O.S. No.
Small Causes Judge, Bangalore dated January 27, 2000 in H.R.C. Nos.10700 10701 of 1991 thereby affirming the order of eviction on the ground of bona fide need of the respondent landlord.
The said Regular First Appeal was dismissed for number prosecution on February 27, 2001 and, thereafter, a petition for restoration was also dismissed for number prosecution on January 10, 2002.
The suit was tried by the XXVIIIth Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore.
It appears that the tenants preferred H.R.R.P Nos.1295 1296 of 1995 before the High Court companytending that the eviction petitions were number maintainable as there was numberjural relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.
It is important at this stage to refer to the proceedings initiated by the appellants during the pendency of the eviction proceeding.
While the aforesaid Regular First Appeal was pending in the High Court, Doraiswamy claiming to be the landlord, filed applications for eviction of the appellants herein under various provisions of the Karnataka Rent Control Act including Section 21 1 h thereof.
