Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Surendra Nayak, filed a writ petition challenging the order dated 27.06.2016 passed by the III Additional District Judge, D.K., Mangalore, dismissing his revision petition under Section 46(2) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 2001. The revision petition had challenged the order dated 28.01.2011 of the Principal Civil Judge, Mangaluru, in HRC No.11/2009, which dismissed the petitioner's application under Section 43 of the Act. The petitioner claimed to be a tenant in a suit property bearing Door No.14-3-240, admeasuring 120 Sq.Ft., situated in Manar Complex, Balmatta New Road, Mangaluru. The Manar Complex was constructed by M/s. Manar Builders, a partnership firm, whose partners were family members of one A.M. Moosa Haji. In 2006, the wife of A.M. Moosa Haji, Mrs. Aysha Moosa Haji, filed an eviction suit against Subhash Chandra Kini and the petitioner. In that suit, the petitioner took a stand that he had obtained the property from A.M. Moosa Haji. Subsequently, the petitioner filed HRC No.11/2009 under Section 43 of the Karnataka Rent Act seeking to deposit rent, claiming that the respondent, A.M. Mohammed Shafi, was his landlord. The trial court dismissed the application, and the revisional court affirmed. The High Court noted that the petitioner failed to produce any rent receipts or documents to show that he paid rent to the respondent. The courts below concurrently found that the petitioner had not established a landlord-tenant relationship with the respondent. The High Court held that the burden of proof was on the petitioner, and he had not discharged it. The writ petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Landlord-Tenant Relationship - Burden of Proof - Section 43, Karnataka Rent Act, 2001 - The petitioner-tenant sought to deposit rent under Section 43, claiming the respondent was his landlord. The court held that the burden lies on the tenant to prove the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship. The petitioner failed to produce any rent receipts or documents showing payment of rent to the respondent. The concurrent findings of the courts below that no such relationship existed were upheld. (Paras 2-5)
B) Rent Control - Revision under Section 46(2) - Scope of Interference - Section 46(2), Karnataka Rent Act, 2001 - The revisional court under Section 46(2) has limited jurisdiction and cannot reappreciate evidence unless there is a perverse finding. The High Court, in writ jurisdiction, declined to interfere with concurrent findings of fact that the petitioner was not a tenant of the respondent. (Paras 4-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner-tenant had established a landlord-tenant relationship with the respondent so as to seek deposit of rent under Section 43 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 2001?
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the concurrent findings of the courts below that the petitioner had failed to establish a landlord-tenant relationship with the respondent.
Law Points
- Burden of proof on tenant to establish landlord-tenant relationship
- Section 43 of Karnataka Rent Act
- 2001
- Section 46(2) of Karnataka Rent Act
- Concurrent findings of fact not interfered with in writ jurisdiction
Case Details
2016 LawText (KAR) (08) 7
Writ Petition No.43445/2016 (HRC)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the III Additional District Judge dismissing revision petition under Section 46(2) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 2001.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought to quash the order dated 27.06.2016 in R.R.P.2/2011 and allow the revision petition, thereby allowing his application under Section 43 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 2001.
Filing Reason
Petitioner claimed to be a tenant of the respondent and sought to deposit rent under Section 43 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 2001, but the courts below dismissed his application on the ground that he failed to establish a landlord-tenant relationship.
Previous Decisions
The Principal Civil Judge, Mangaluru, dismissed the petitioner's application under Section 43 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 2001, vide order dated 28.01.2011 in HRC No.11/2009. The III Additional District Judge, D.K., Mangalore, dismissed the revision petition under Section 46(2) of the Act vide order dated 27.06.2016 in R.R.P.2/2011.
Issues
Whether the petitioner-tenant had established a landlord-tenant relationship with the respondent so as to seek deposit of rent under Section 43 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 2001?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that he was a tenant of the respondent and entitled to deposit rent under Section 43 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 2001.
Respondent contended that there was no landlord-tenant relationship between them.
Ratio Decidendi
The burden of proof lies on the tenant to establish the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship. The petitioner failed to produce any rent receipts or documents showing payment of rent to the respondent. The concurrent findings of fact by the courts below, based on evidence, cannot be interfered with in writ jurisdiction unless perverse.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioner, Mr. Surendra Nayak, has challenged the legality of the order dated 27.06.2011, passed by the III Additional District Judge, D.K., Mangalore, whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the petitioner’s revision petition filed under Section 46 (2) of the Karnataka Rent Act.
The petitioner took a categorical stand that in fact, he had obtained the schedule property from Mr.A.M. Moosa Haji.
The petitioner has not been able to produce a single rent receipt to show that he had paid the rent to the respondent.
Thus, the petitioner has failed to establish the landlord-tenant relationship between him and the respondent.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed HRC No.11/2009 under Section 43 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 2001, before the Principal Civil Judge, Mangaluru, seeking to deposit rent. The trial court dismissed the application on 28.01.2011. The petitioner filed a revision petition under Section 46(2) of the Act before the III Additional District Judge, D.K., Mangalore, which was dismissed on 27.06.2016. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka.
Acts & Sections
- Karnataka Rent Act, 2001: Section 43, Section 46(2)
