Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Advocates
  • Sri G.S Mahadevappa, Advocate for Petitioner
  • Sri M.L Dayananda Kumar, Advocate for Respondent
Judges
  • M.B Vishwanath, J.
Acts
  • Section 29(1) & (4) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act
  • Section 3(h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act,
  • SECTION 116 EVIDENCE ACT
  • Section 19 of the K.R.C Act
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Advocates
  • Sri G.S Mahadevappa, Advocate for Petitioner
  • Sri M.L Dayananda Kumar, Advocate for Respondent
Judges
  • M.B Vishwanath, J.
Acts
  • Section 29(1) & (4) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act
  • Section 3(h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act,
  • SECTION 116 EVIDENCE ACT
  • Section 19 of the K.R.C Act
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Judgment Summary — Revision Petition (Vedamurthy v. Gopalachari)

Factual and Procedural Background

This revision petition was filed by Vedamurthy (the petitioner, alleged landlord) challenging the order dated 4.12.1990 passed on I.A. No. 1 by the H.R.C. Judge (Small Causes Judge (SCCH-I), Bangalore City) in H.R.C. No. 765/1986. The petitioner had filed I.A. No. 1 under Section 29(1) & (4) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act during the pendency of H.R.C. No. 765/1986, seeking (a) stoppage of further proceedings on the ground that the tenant had not paid arrears of rent and (b) an order directing the tenant to deliver possession of the petition-schedule residential premises. The learned H.R.C. Judge rejected I.A. No. 1; the petitioner challenged that rejection by way of revision.

The property’s original admitted owner was Kariyappa, who had children Veeranna, Lakkappa, Ramu and a daughter Mallamma (wife of Nanjappa). Veeranna died issueless; the petitioner Vedamurthy is the son of Lakkappa. The respondent Gopalachari (alleged tenant) asserted that Ramalappa (son of Mallamma) mortgaged the property in his favour under documents Ex. R-3 and Ex. R-4 dated 6.3.1974 and 10.12.1975 respectively. The petitioner claimed he was heir to Veeranna and therefore owner, and asserted that the respondent was his tenant and had paid him rent.

Evidentiary material placed before the court included: testimony of the respondent (R.W.1) that he took the premises on lease from Veeranna about 40 years ago and paid rent to Ramalappa after Veeranna’s death; testimony of P.W.3 Rameshmurthy corroborating signatures on M.O. coupons (Ex. P-1, Ex. P-2) and counter-foils from a rent receipt book (Ex. P-3) indicating payments; various documents produced by the petitioner (Ex. P-4, Ex. P-5, Ex. P-7 series, Ex. P-8, Ex. P-13, Ex. P-14) showing acts of ownership and discharged mortgages. The H.R.C. Judge found there was a complicated question of title and that the landlord-tenant relationship between the petitioner and the respondent was not established; the revisional court considered those findings.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether, on the materials before the H.R.C. Court (including evidence of rent payment and documentary exhibits), the relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner Vedamurthy and the respondent Gopalachari was established so as to justify the relief claimed in I.A. No. 1 under Section 29(1) & (4) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act.
  2. Whether the existence of competing title claims (notably the alleged mortgage/interest claimed by Ramalappa and the respondent) rendered the application triable only by referring the parties to a separate suit on title, thereby preventing relief in summary K.R.C. proceedings.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The petitioner asserted he was the owner/heir (as heir to Veeranna) and thus the landlord of the petition schedule premises.
  • The petitioner claimed the respondent was his tenant and had paid rent to him; he produced a rent receipt book (with counter-foils) and various documents (Ex. P-4, Ex. P-5, Ex. P-7 series, Ex. P-8, Ex. P-13, Ex. P-14) to show acts of ownership and discharge of earlier mortgages.
  • The petitioner relied on the legal principle that payment of rent establishes a landlord-tenant relationship and invoked statutory and evidentiary provisions (Section 3(h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act; Section 116 of the Evidence Act) to argue the respondent was estopped from denying his title in these proceedings.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The respondent contended that Ramalappa (son of Mallamma) mortgaged the property in his favour (Ex. R-3 and Ex. R-4) and that he paid rent to Ramalappa, not to the petitioner.
  • The respondent’s counsel relied on precedent (Pratapsingh v. Jaibunnisa Begum) to support the proposition invoked in the proceedings; generally the respondent argued a complicated title dispute existed and that the tenancy/ownership issue was not established for summary K.R.C. relief.
  • The respondent did not deposit rents under Section 19 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act prior to taking the alleged mortgage from Ramalappa (a fact noted by the court).

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
Pratapsingh v. Jaibunnisa Begum (ILR 1987 KAR 3464) Authority concerning denial of landlord's title by tenant and issues relating to permanent tenancy and long usage/prescription. The court found this authority dealt with permanent tenancy (including very long periods and prescription) and held it was not applicable to the facts of the present case.
B. Thammiah v. K.V. Subba Rao (1964 2 Mys. L.J. 356) Decision involving usufructuary mortgage and complicated title disputes before courts under the Act. The court reviewed this decision (though it was not cited by counsel) and held it concerned a complicated title dispute and thus had no application to the present case’s facts.
Mohammed Ibrahim v. Mahabaobbi (1963 2 Mys. L.J. 250) Authority stating that where there is a complicated dispute as to title, the court under the Act has power to refer parties to a suit. The court considered this ruling and concluded that the circumstances in that case (admitted owner at some point and complicated title) differed from the present matter, so it did not apply here.
Loday Molram v. Kolly Dass Roy (1882 Vol. 8 ILR Cal. 238) Principle (as stated by Field, J.) that suits for rent should not be complicated by bringing in third persons who claim adversely and raising title questions between such third persons and plaintiff. The court cited this principle to emphasize that proceedings for rent should not be converted into full suits on title by bringing in third-party claims; used to support resolving the matter in K.R.C. proceedings where possible.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court examined the evidentiary record and legal principles in sequence:

  1. Fact-finding on evidence of payment: The court accepted P.W.3 Rameshmurthy’s evidence that he filled up M.O. coupons and that Ex. P-1 bears the respondent’s signature; P.W.3 also identified a counter-foil (Ex. P-3) showing the respondent’s signature on the reverse. The rent receipt book and counter-foils produced by the petitioner corroborated that the respondent had paid rent to the petitioner.
  2. Legal proposition on rent payment: The court invoked the well-known proposition (reinforced by a cited treatise) that payment of rent, when unaccompanied by fraud or mistake, establishes the relationship of landlord and tenant.
  3. Statutory definition: The court referred to Section 3(h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act (definition of “landlord”) to show that receipt of rent is a relevant statutory indicium of landlordship. Even according to the respondent at one point he had been a tenant; the court found it established that the respondent paid rent after Veeranna’s death to the petitioner Vedamurthy.
  4. Estoppel: Under Section 116 of the Evidence Act, the court held the tenant (respondent) is estopped from denying the title of the landlord (petitioner) having paid rents to him.
  5. On competing title claims: The court considered the respondent’s contention that Ramalappa had rights by mortgage and noted the proper route for that contention was separate proceedings. The court stressed that K.R.C. summary proceedings should not be converted into a full suit for declaration of title; it distinguished authorities that were concerned with permanent tenancy or genuinely complicated title disputes and found them inapplicable on the facts.
  6. Surrounding circumstances: The court noted additional documentary material (Ex. P-7 tax paid receipts, Ex. P-8 show cause notice, Ex. P-4 mortgage discharged by petitioner, Ex. P-5, Exs. P-13 and P-14) indicating acts of ownership or discharge of earlier encumbrances by the petitioner, further supporting landlordship or, at least, a semblance of title sufficient for K.R.C. proceedings.
  7. Conclusion on correctness of H.R.C. Judge’s order: Given the evidence of rent payment, statutory definitions, estoppel, and surrounding documentary evidence, the revisional court concluded the H.R.C. Judge’s rejection of I.A. No. 1 (on the ground of complicated title and non-establishment of landlord-tenant relationship) was perverse and could not be sustained.

Holding and Implications

Holding:

The revision petition is allowed; the impugned order of the H.R.C. Judge dated 4.12.1990 is set aside and it is held that there exists a relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner Vedamurthy and the respondent Gopalachari.

Implications:

  • The direct procedural effect is that the matter is remanded to the trial H.R.C. Court for further proceedings under the Karnataka Rent Control Act in light of the court’s conclusion that the landlord-tenant relationship was established for the purposes of these proceedings.
  • The court did not convert these summary K.R.C. proceedings into a full suit on title; it indicated that any person (for example, Ramalappa or others) claiming an interest in the property must establish that interest in separate proceedings if they so choose.
  • The opinion does not purport to lay down a new broad precedent beyond applying established principles (payment of rent evidences landlord-tenant relation; estoppel under Section 116; distinguishing authorities dealing with permanent tenancy or complicated title disputes). Therefore, no declaration of a new rule of law was made; the decision resolves the parties’ rights in these proceedings and clarifies that the H.R.C. Court should not be precluded from granting relief where rent payment and attendant evidence establish landlordship in summary proceedings.
Show full summary ...

    K.L Vedamurthy v. M. Gopalachari

    M.B Vishwanath, J.:—

    Revision Petitioner Vedamurthy is the alleged landlord. Repondent Gopalachari is the alleged tenant on the petition schedule residential premises.

    2. In this revision petition the order dated 4.12.1990 passed on I.A No. I by the H.R.C Judge (Small Causes Judge (SCCH-I) Bangalore City.) in H.R.C No. 765/1986 has been challenged.

    3. The petitioner-landlord claiming that he was the owner of the petition schedule premises, during the pendency of H.R.C No. 765/1986, filed I.A No. 1 under Section 29(1) & (4) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act praying that further proceedings should be stopped since the tenant had not paid arrears of rent and that the tenant should be directed to deliver possession of the petition schedule premises.

    4. The learned H.R.C Judge rejected I.A No. 1 the impugned order. The petitioner has challenged the order passed on I.A No. 1.

    5. The learned H.R.C Judge rejected I.A No. I filed by the petitioner on the ground that there was a complicated question of title between the parties and that the relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the respondent was not established.

    6. The original admitted owner of the petition schedule property is one Kariyappa. The said Kariyappa had three sons, Veeranna, Lakkappa and Ramu and a daughter Mallamma (W/o Nanjappa).

    7. Veeranna died issueless, His wife pre-deceased him. Petitioner Vedamurthy is the son of Lakkappa. Ramalappa (S/o Mallamma), according to the respondent, mortgaged the property in favour of the respondent.

    8. The case of petitioner Vedamurthy is that the respondent is his tenant and the respondent was paying rent and has paid rent.

    9. The petitioner claims that he is the heir to Veeranna and so he has become the owner of the property.

    10. The respondent's case is that Ramalappa (S/o Mallamma and Nanjappa) mortgaged the property in his favour.

    11. The case of petitioner Vedamurthy is that he is the landlord and respondent Gopalachari is his tenant. His further case is that respondent Gopalachari has paid him rents to the petition schedule premises.

    12. Respondent Gopalachari (R.W 1) has stated in his evidence that he had taken the suit premises on lease from Veeranna about 40 years ago and that after the death of Veeranna he had paid rents to Ramalappa (R.W 2).

    13. P.W 3 Rameshmurthy is the son of Kuppuswamy (since deceased). This Kuppuswamy is the tenant of the premises adjoining the petition schedule premises. P.W 3 Rameshmurthy has stated in his evidence that his father did not know how to fill up M.O coupon and that he filled up the M.O form and that Ex. P-2 is the M.O coupon in his hand-writing which bears the signature of his father.

    14. P.W 3 Rameshmurthy has stated in his evidence that he filled up the M.O form of the respondent also and Ex. P-1 is the M.O coupon in his hand-writing that it contains the signature of the respondent. There is nothing to show as to why P.W 3 should swear falsely against respondent Gopalachari. The evidence of P.W 3 proves that M.O coupon Ex. P-1 bears the signature of the respondent, for the respondent having sent rent to the petitioner.

    15. The petitioner has produced the receipt book meant to issue rent receipts to the tenants. This rent receipt book contains the counter foils. P.W 3 Rameshmurthy has stated in his evidence that one of the counter-foils bears the signature of his father, for his father having paid rent directly to the petitioner. He has further stated in his evidence that the counter-foil Ex. P-3, on the reverse, contains the signature of the respondent.

    16. There is nothing to show as to why P.W 3 Rameshmurthy should swear falsely against respondent Gopalachari.

    17. From the discussion above it is clear that the proved facts establish that the respondent has paid rents to the petitioner.

    18. ‘Payment of rent proves the relation of landlord and tenant”.

    19. In a treatise on the Law of Estoppel by Melville M. Bigelow, at page 553, it has been stated, “Payment of rent……when unaccompanied by fraud or mistake establishes the relationship of landlord and tenant”.

    20. The definition of landlord as per Section 3(h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, in so far as it is relevant for our present purpose, says that a landlord means any person who is for the time being receiving……rent in respect of any premises……. In the instant case, at one point of time, even according to the respondent he was a tenant on the petition schedule premises. It is established that he has paid rents, after the death of Veeranna in 1973, to petitioner Vedamurthy. In my opinion, this establishes the relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the respondent.

    21. The respondent cannot disclaim that petitioner Vedamurthy is his landlord. If Ramalappa has right in the petition schedule premises, as contended by the learned Counsel for the respondent, Ramalappa or any other person claiming interest in the property has to establish his right in separate proceedings. In these H.R.C proceedings the respondent, who has paid rent to the petitioner, cannot be permitted to deny the relationship of landlord and tenant.

    22. There are other surrounding circumstances to show that the respondent has paid rents to the petitioner. The case of the respondent is that Ramalappa mortgaged the property in his (respondents) favour under Ex. R. 3 on 6.3.1974 and under the second mortgage deed Ex. R-4 dated 10.12.1975

    23. The respondent prior to taking mortgage under Ex. R-3 from Ramalappa, to whom did he pay rents? The respondent says that the petitioner is not the landlord. But he has not deposited the rents under Section 19 of the K.R.C Act before taking the alleged mortgage, from Ramalappa. Ex. P-7 series, a number of tax paid receipts, show that the petitioner was exercising acts of ownership. Ex. P-8 is the show cause notice issued to the petitioner by the Corporation to pay the tax. Ex. P-4 is the mortgage created by Veeranna through whom the petitioner claims title. Ex. P-4 shows that this mortgage has been discharged by petitioner Vedamurthy. The petitioner has discharged another mortgage Ex. P-5 created by deceased Veeranna in favour of Rathnamma.

    24. The petitioner has produced Exs. P-13 and P-14, mortgage deeds created by Veeranna and discharged by himself (petitioner).

    25. Under Section 116 of the Evidence Act tenant Gopalachari, is estopped from denying the title of landlord Vedamurthy, having paid rents to him.

    26. The learned Counsel for the respondent relied on the decision of this Court in Pratapsingh v. Jaibunnisa Begum* . ILR 1987 KAR 3464.. This was a case in which the tenant denied the title of the landlord. The case of the tenants was that they had not paid rents to the landlord for over 70 years. This Court dealt with a case of permanent lease of the year 1849. A permanent tenancy is created by local usage or is acquired by prescription, in the absence of an agreement to the contrary a lease will be deemed to be one from year to year or from month to month, as in this case.

    27. The authority relied on, which relates to permanent tenancy, is not applicable to the facts of the present case.

    28. Though not cited, I have looked into B. Thammiah v. K.V Subba Rao . 1964 2 Mysore Law Journal, 356. and Mohammed Ibrahim v. Mahabaobbi . 1963 2 Mysore Law Journal, 250. lest the ruling I give should conflict with the earlier decisions rendered by eminent judges of this Court.

    29. In the latter case it has been laid down that whenever there is a complicated dispute as to the title of the landlord or as to the existence of the tenancy, the Court functioning under the Act has power to refer the parties to a suit. This was a case in which the tenant was admittedly the owner at some point of time. This authority has no application to the facts of the present case.

    In 1964 (2) Mys. L.J 356, a usufructuary mortgage was involved and it was a really complicated case of title and there was bonafide dispute between the parties as to the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant. This authority has also no application to the facts of the present case.

    30. The learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on a number of documents to show that the petitioner was the absolute owner of the property. The learned Counsel for the respondent relied on some documents to show that Ramalappa was the absolute owner of the property. It is not necessary to pronounce in these on summary proceedings on who has got absolute title to the petition schedule residential premises. These summary proceedings under the K.R.C Act cannot be converted into an original suit for declaration.

    31. To repeat, the fact that Rawalappa might have some right in the petition schedule property cannot be bliniked at. To use the language of Field, J, Loday Molram v. Kolly Dass Roy . 1882 Vol. 8 ILR Cal. 238 at 246. “…..the suits for rent should not be complicated by bringing in third persons who claim adversely to the plaintiff, and raising, as between such third persons and the plaintiff, questions of title…..”

    32. Let me recapitulate. There is evidence to show that the respondent has paid rents to the petitioner and the petitioner has semblance of title to the petition schedule premises.

    33. The stake involved in this case is not high but the point of law involved is serious, if not complicated.

    34. For the aforesaid reasons I am of opinion the impugned order of the H.R.C Judge is perverse and cannot be sustained. Accordingly it is set aide. It is held that there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the respondent.

    The revision petition is allowed accordingly and the matter is remanded to the trial Court for further proceedings under the K.R.C Act.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.
    Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

    Comments

    K.L Vedamurthy v. M. Gopalachari
    (Jul 15, 1998)