LexJOSEPH KANTHARAJ & ANR. versus ATIHARUNNISA BEGUM S.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2010) 1 S.C.R. 629
JOSEPH KANTHARAJ & ANR.
v.
ATIHARUNNISA BEGUMS.
(Civil Appeal No. 282 of 2010)
JANUARY 11, 2010
.[R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, JJ.]
Kamataka Rent Act, 1999:
A
B
ss. 27(2)(r) and 43 - Eviction proceedings - Deferment c
of - HELD: A mere assertion by a tenant that he is in
possession in part pelformance of an agreement of sale or
mere filing of a suit for specific pelformance, by itself will not
lead to deferment of eviction proceedings uls 43 - But where
tenant produces and relies upon an agreement of sale which
0
confirms delivery of possession in part pelformance and a
specific pelformance suit is pending, and there is no lease
deed or payment of rent from the date of such agreement of
sale, ·or no acknowledgement of attomment of tenancy, s.43
may apply ~ Unless the court is satisfied prima facie that-the
E
agreement is genuine and defence is bona fide, it should not
defer the eviction proceedings - In the instant case, trial court
was justified in holding that eviction petition should be
deferred till the decision in the suit for specific pelformance
- Order of High Court set aside and that of trial court restored
- However, in case the suit for specific pelformance fails,
F
landlord would be entitled to seek restoration of eviction
petition - Suit for specific pelformance of contract.
Haji Iqbal Shariff vs. C. Manjula ILR 2006 Kar 2766, held
inapplicable.
G
Case Law Reference:
ILR 2006 Kar 2766, held inapplicable
629
H
630
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2010) 1 S.C.R.
A
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 282
B
c
D
of 2010.
From the Judgment & Order dated 28.5.2008 of the High
Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in H.R.R.P. No. 463 of 2006.
S.N. Bhat for the Appellants.
Shakil Ahmed Syed, Saud A. Syed, Mohd. Moonis Abbasi
for the Respondent.
The order of the Court was delivered by
ORDER
R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J. 1. Leave granted. Heard the
parties.
2. The respondent claiming to be the owner of the suit
premises filed an eviction petition (HRC 1247/1998) against
the first appellant under section 21 (1) proviso (a) and (h) of the
Karnataka Rent Control Act, 196~ ('Old Act', for short). She
alleged that the previous owner Anthony Swamy, sold the suit
E premises to her under a registered sale deed dated 25.9.1997.
3. The first appellant resisted the eviction petition
contending that he was not the tenant of the premises under
the respondent. He alleged that he was earlier the tenant of the
F suit premises from the year 1988, under Anthony Swamy; that
the said Anthony Swamy had entered into an agreement of sale
dated 11.6.1997 in his favour agreeing to sell the suit property
for a consideration of Rs.1,05,000/-; and that under the said
agreement, Anthony Swamy confirmed having received
G Rs.75,000/- as advance and permitted him (the first appellant)
to continue in possession free of rent in part performance of
the agreement of sale. He contended that from that date, he
has been in possession not as a tenant but as a purchaser in
part performance of the agreement of sale and has not therefore
H paid any rent in regard to the premises. The first appellant also
JOSEPH KANTHARAJ & ANR. v. ATIHARUNNISA
631
BEGUM S. [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]
filed a suit for specific performance in OS No.2089/1999 on A
the file of the City Civil Court, Bangalore, against the said
Anthony Swamy and the purchaser (respondent). The said suit
is still pending.
4. The trial court allowed the eviction petition by order 8
dated 30.6.2001 holding that the first appellant was the tenant
under the respondent and that the respondent had established
that she bonafide and reasonably required the suit premises.
The said order was challenged by the first appellant by filing a
revision before the High Court. The High Court, bY its order C
dated 18.10.2001, allowed the revision petition. The High Court
affirmed the trial c;ourt's finding that the relationship of landlord
and tenant was established between the respondent and first
appellant, but held that the ground of eviction alleged, was not
established.
5. Feeling aggrieved by the finding that there was a
relationship of landlord and tenant between the respondent and
himself, the first appellant approached this Court in SLP (C)
No.· 8245/2002. This Court by order dated 29.4.2002 dismissed
D
the special leave petition but, however, clarified that the finding
E
arrived at by the High CouExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.