Trial Court Has Jurisdiction To Entertain Petition Under Karnataka Rent Act: High Court Directs Advocate To Vacate Premises Abandoned For 14 Years
The Karnataka High Court while directing an Advocate to vacate the premises being abandoned by him for the last 14 years, has held that the Trial Court has jurisdiction to entertain petition under the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 (KRA).
The Court was deciding a revision petition filed under Section 46 of KRA praying to set aside the order passed by the Trial Court and pass an order of eviction against the respondent, directing him to quit and hand over the vacant possession of the property to him.
A Single Bench of Justice H.P. Sandesh noted, “… he categorically admits that he is not having intention to comply with the order of the Rent Controller, but he wants to take the shelter of fixation of fair rent in terms of Ex.R1 and the very conduct of the respondent is deprecated and instead of receiving an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- which he was paid as premium making all his efforts to squat on the property and these are the aspects has not been considered by the Trial Court while answering point No.2 and hence, the finding of the Trial Court in respect of point No.2 is requires to be set aside and petition is maintainable and eviction order has to be passed against the respondents.”
The Bench said that though the advocate took premises in 2009, for about 14 years, he is squatting on the property without vacating the premises and even not accepting the premium amount what he had paid and instead raised untenable grounds and also approached the Rent Controller for fixation of rent.
Advocate Shanthi Bhushan represented the petitioner while Advocate Ravishankar S. represented the respondent.
In this case, the petitioner filed an eviction petition being the owner of the residential premises which was leased out to the respondent who was an advocate by profession for a monthly rent of Rs. 3,400/- and had received security deposit of Rs. 10,00,000/-. Both of them were friends and hence the respondent requested the petitioner to lease out the premises and the said request was acceded to. It was an understanding between the petitioner and respondent that the duration of lease would be of three years.
As per the petitioner, in 2019, the respondent expressed his inability to pay the rents and requested the petitioner to deduct the rents at Rs. 3,400/- per month from the advance so paid by him and to permit him to continue his tenancy till 2013, to which the petitioner agreed. In 2013, on expiration of lease period, when the petitioner requested the respondent to vacate the premises, he requested for the extension of lease and kept on promising to vacate as and when he would find a suitable accommodation. On filing an eviction petition, the Trial Court dismissed the same concluding that it was not maintainable for want of jurisdiction as per Section 2(3)(e)(1) of KRA and hence the petitioner approached the High Court.
The High Court in the above context observed, “Having considered the material available on record, both oral and documentary evidence and also the answers elicited from the mouth of PW1 as well as RW1 it is clear that possession was delivered in terms of Ex.R5 and premium amount of Rs.10,00,000/- was paid and the agreement is also for a period of three years”
The point that arose for consideration before the Court was whether the Trial Court committed an error in answering point No.2 that the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition under the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 in coming to the conclusion that the eviction petition is not maintainable under Section 2(3)(e)(1) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999.
“It is important to note that, the Trial Court though answered point Nos.1 and 3 and held that there exists jural relationship between the parties and petitioner has made out the ground to evict the respondent, but on technicalities rejected the petition and hence I answer the point as affirmative.”, further observed the Court.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the revision petition and directed the respondent to vacate premises within 60 days.
Cause Title- Krishnaprasad A. v. L. Doreswamy Advocate
