Case Note & Summary
The High Court of Karnataka heard three regular first appeals (RFA Nos. 1926/2013, 1924/2013, and 1925/2013) filed by tenants against decrees of ejectment passed by the trial court. The respondent‑plaintiff, M/s. Switching Power Conversion Pvt. Ltd., had purchased the suit property (factory land and building at Peenya Industrial Estate) in a public auction conducted by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, with the sale confirmed on 18 November 2004 and a sale certificate issued on 19 November 2004. The appellants‑defendants occupied portions of the property as tenants under the previous owner, Shamba Shiva Reddy. After the purchase, the plaintiff issued notices demanding rent and, later, termination notices in August 2007, asking the defendants to vacate by 31 August 2007. Upon their failure to do so, three separate suits (O.S. Nos. 7810/2007, 7204/2007, and 7468/2007) were filed for ejectment, arrears of rent, and damages. The trial court framed issues concerning the existence of landlord‑tenant relationship, validity of termination of tenancy, arrears of rent, limitation, maintainability, and entitlement to relief. After trial, the court decreed all three suits, directing the defendants to vacate and pay arrears with interest at 6% per annum from the date of suit, and directing an enquiry into damages under Order XX Rule 12 CPC. Aggrieved, the defendants appealed. In their appeals, they contended that the suits were time‑barred under Article 134 of the Limitation Act, 1963, as they were filed more than one year after confirmation of sale; that the suits were not maintainable in a civil court because the plaintiff should have resorted to execution proceedings under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 or under Order XXI Rule 95 CPC; that no landlord‑tenant relationship existed with the plaintiff; that the tenancy was never attorned in favour of the plaintiff; that necessary parties (previous owner and bank) were not joined; and that the suits were barred under Section 47 CPC. The High Court heard arguments and reserved judgment on 27 November 2019. The available text, however, does not contain the High Court's analysis, findings, or ultimate decision; the excerpt ends mid‑submission of the appellants' counsel. Thus, the final outcome of the appeals is not included in the provided material.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the ejectment suits filed by the auction purchaser are barred by limitation under Article 134 of the Limitation Act, 1963; whether the suits are maintainable in a civil court given the plaintiff's purchase through a DRT auction; and whether there exists a landlord‑tenant relationship between the plaintiff and the defendants.
Law Points
- limitation period for auction purchaser to recover possession
- maintainability of civil suit after DRT auction
- landlord-tenant relationship with auction purchaser
- attornment of tenancy
- necessary parties
- bar under Section 47 CPC
Case Details
2019 LawText (KAR) (12) 16
RFA.No.1926/2013, RFA.No.1924/2013, RFA.No.1925/2013
Kashyap N. Naik for appellants; G. Papi Reddy for respondent
M. Shankar; S. Nagaraju; Smt. Vimala
M/S. Switching Power Conversion Pvt. Ltd.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Ejectment suits filed by an auction‑purchaser company against tenants occupying portions of the purchased property, seeking possession, arrears of rent, and damages.
Remedy Sought
The plaintiff sought a decree directing the defendants to quit and vacate the suit premises, payment of rental arrears with interest, and damages for continued occupation after termination of tenancy.
Filing Reason
After purchasing the property in a DRT auction, the plaintiff called upon the tenants to pay rent; they denied the plaintiff’s title and refused to vacate, leading to the filing of suits for ejectment.
Previous Decisions
The trial court (III Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore) decreed all three suits on 19 August 2013, directing the defendants to vacate and pay arrears of rent with 6% interest, and ordering an enquiry into damages under Order XX Rule 12 CPC. The defendants then filed regular first appeals before the High Court.
Issues
Whether the suits are barred by limitation under Article 134 of the Limitation Act, 1963?
Whether the suits are maintainable in a civil court, given that the plaintiff acquired the property through a DRT auction and allegedly should have proceeded under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 or under Order XXI Rule 95 CPC?
Whether there existed a landlord‑tenant relationship between the plaintiff (auction purchaser) and the defendants?
Whether the tenancy of the defendants was lawfully determined?
Whether the defendants are liable to pay arrears of rent and damages to the plaintiff?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants (defendants) argued that the suits were time‑barred as they were filed more than one year after confirmation of sale, contrary to Article 134 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
They contended that the suits were not maintainable because the plaintiff, as an auction purchaser, should have resorted to execution proceedings under the Recovery of Debts Act or applied under Order XXI Rule 95 CPC rather than filing a civil suit.
They denied any landlord‑tenant relationship with the plaintiff, asserting that they were tenants under the previous owner, Shamba Shiva Reddy, and that there had been no attornment of tenancy in favour of the plaintiff.
They argued that necessary parties — the previous owner and the bank — were not joined, and that the suits were barred by Section 47 CPC.
The plaintiff (respondent) relied on its ownership through the DRT auction and the issuance of notices demanding rent and terminating tenancy; it contended that the suits were within time and that the tenants were obliged to vacate and pay arrears.
Judgment Excerpts
The brief facts of the case:- It is the case of the plaintiff in all the suits that the plaintiff is a private limited company having incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and that the factory land and building thereon… was purchased by the plaintiff in the public auction held on 18.6.2004 by Debts Recovery Tribunal, Bangalore.
It is the case of the plaintiff in all the suits that notice of termination of tenancy was issued on 7.9.2007 in O.S.No.7810/2007, on 09.08.2007 in O.S.No.7204/2007 and on 04.08.2007 in O.S.No.7468/2007 asking the defendants to quit or vacate the premises on or before 31.08.2007.
It is also the contention of the defendants that the defendants are not the tenants under the plaintiff. However, they admit in their written statement that they were tenants to one Shamba Shiva Reddy. … there is no jural relationship of lessor and lessee and there is no agreement between the plaintiff and defendants.
Procedural History
The plaintiff purchased the suit property in a public auction by the Debts Recovery Tribunal on 18 June 2004; sale confirmed on 18 November 2004 and sale certificate issued on 19 November 2004. The defendants (tenants) initially filed suits for permanent injunction against the plaintiff, which were dismissed. The plaintiff issued termination notices in August 2007 and, upon the defendants’ refusal to vacate, filed three ejectment suits in 2007. The trial court decreed all three suits on 19 August 2013. The defendants filed regular first appeals in 2013 (RFA Nos. 1926, 1924, and 1925 of 2013). The High Court heard arguments and reserved judgment on 27 November 2019, delivering the judgment on 20 December 2019.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 47, Section 96, Order 7 Rule 1(e) and (f), Order 20 Rule 12, Order 21 Rule 95, Order 41 Rule 1 and 2
- Limitation Act, 1963: Article 134, Article 65(c)
- Companies Act, 1956:
- Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993:
