Aravind Kumar, J.
1. The respondent before the trial Court is questioning the orders passed on I.A. II dated 10-11-2009 in HRC 180/2007 on the file of the XI Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore.
2. The facts in nutshell are as follows:
Respondent herein initiated eviction proceedings against the tenant in HRC 180/2007 under Section 27(2)(a) and (r) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999. It was contended in the eviction petition that they purchased the property bearing No. 72, assessment No. 133 K. No. 71C Laggere village, Yeshwanthapura Hobli. Measuring east to West 30 North to South 50' wherein the petition schedule premises is situated under sale deed dated 19-6-2006 from one Sri Anthony Raj. Subsequent to the purchase khatha has also been transferred to their name and they have been paying taxes.
3. It was further contended subsequent to the purchase the respondent was informed about the purchase of the property and on the understanding that the respondent has agreed to continue revision petitioner as a tenant of the schedule premises whereunder it was agreed that the respondent tenant would pay rent of Rs. 300/- per month within 15th of every month. On account of the default committed it was alleged that a legal notice dated 23-12-2006 came to be issued terminating the tenancy and calling upon the tenant to pay the arrears of rent on account of non-compliance of the demand made in the notice, eviction proceedings as referred to supra was initiated.
4. On service of notice respondent-tenant appeared before the Court below and filed statement of objections contending that there is no jural relationship of landlord and tenant and it was contended that petitioners were strangers and there was no privity of contract and at no point of time she had paid any rents to the petitioners. She further contended that one Muniraju who claims to be an agreement holder in respect of the property referred to above had filed a suit on the file of the City Civil Court in O.S. No. 8566/2006 for specific enforcement of agreement to sell and hence it was contended that there is serious dispute with regard to title of the property in question.
5. During the pendency of the proceedings an application under Section 43 came to be filed by the respondent tenant seeking for stay of all further proceedings in HRC 180/2007, In the said application respondent contended that she is residing in the property along with her grand son namely Anthony Raj who is the absolute owner of the property in question. The application came to be resisted by the petitioner landlord by filing detailed statement of objections.
6. In support of their respective claims parties have tendered in their evidence in the trial Court. On the basis of the pleadings and evidence on record the Court below framed the following points for its consideration:
(i) Whether the respondent proves that their exist dispute with regard to the relationship of landlord and tenant?
(ii) What order?
7. On considering the pleadings, evidence on record and arguments advanced, the Court below by its order dated 10-11-2009 dismissed the application filed under Section 43 of the Karnataka Rent Act. It is this order which has been assailed in the present revision petition.
8. I have heard Smt. Geethamala, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.N. Puttegowda for respondents.
9. Smt. Geethamala contends that Court below has erred in not considering the fact that respondent/revision petitioner was grand mother of Sri Anthony Raj and he being the absolute owner of the property in question is residing along with him in her independent right and there is no privity of contract between petitioners and respondent and in the absence thereof, Court below ought to have held that there existed no jural relationship of landlord and tenant. She would further contend that admittedly one Mr. Muniraj is an agreement holder in respect of the suit schedule property and he has filed a suit in O.S. No. 8566/2006 which is pending on the file of the City Civil Court, Bangalore and thus there is a serious dispute with regard to the title of the suit schedule property. She would also contend that Mr. Anthony Raj has filed a complaint before the jurisdictional Police Station against the petitioner landlords under Section 420, 385 and 406 IPC and as such there does not exist any jural relationship of landlord arid tenant, in support of her submissions she relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Joseph Kantharaj and Anr. v. Attharunnisa Begum reported in 2010 AIR SCW 1411.
10. Per contra Sri K.N. Puttegowda, learned Counsel for the respondent landlord would contend that order of Court below does not suffer from any infirmities whatsoever. He would submit that admittedly Mr. Anthony Raj was the owner of the property in question and he having alienated the same in favour of the petitioner under a registered sale deed dated 19-6-2006 is now attempting to wriggle out of the situation and has filed a false complaint and it is also countered by the petitioner by filing separate complaint. He submits that pursuant to sale deed Khatha of the property has been transferred to the names of the petitioner landlords and they have been paying the taxes regularly. He would further contend that subsequent to the sale deed executed by Sri Anthony Raj they were allowed to reside in the petition schedule premises on payment of rent of Rs. 300/- per month and since they defaulted in the payment of rent, the respondent is liable to by evicted and accordingly the eviction petition was filed both for arrears of rent and for self occupation. On these grounds he submits that there exists jural relationship between the petitioner and the respondent and trial Court having considered this fact has rightly rejected the application and seeks for dismissal of the revision petition. In support of his submission he relies upon the decision of this Court in the case of Silva Uddin v. Nagaraju : ILR 2004 Kar 4782.
11. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties the following points arise for my consideration.
(i) Whether the respondent/tenant has proved before the Court below there was no jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and respondent?
(ii) Whether the order passed by the Court below in rejecting I.A. No. 2 suffers from any infirmity either in law or on facts?
(iii) To what order?
12. Re: Point No. 1 Pursuant to the application filed by the revision petitioner under Section 43 to stay further proceedings before the Court below, objections were filed to the said application. In order to elicit the rival contentions, the Court below has held an enquiry. Both the parties have tendered their evidence in support of their respective claims. The respondent-tenant has filed an affidavit in lieu of her examination-in-chief which is dated 4-11-2008. In the said affidavit she has categorically stated to the following effect:
I further state that the petitioners are stranger to me. There is no brevity of contract. I am paying rent to the landlord every month and I have contract of tenancy with one Sri Anihony Raj and not with the petitioners herein.
(Emphasis supplied by me)
While marking the affidavit filed in support of her claim she has pleaded ignorance about the respondent landlords informing her to pay the rents. In her own words she has stated to the following effect:
These facts clearly go to establish that respondent is not claiming any independent right by herself. She has been attempting to protect her alleged possession through Mr. Anthony Raj who is her grandson. The said Anthony Raj admittedly alienated the property in question under a registered sale deed on 19-6-2006 in favour of respondent landlords. She cannot claim a better title then what Mr. Anthony Raj possessed. She further admits in her evidence as extracted hereinabove that she has been paying rents to Anthony Raj who is her landlord and who also happens to be her grandson. These facts clearly establish that respondent tenant and Anthony Raj are attempting to avoid and evade from continuing the eviction proceedings by putting forth untenable claims the one which is made before Court below. Having admitted that she is paying rents to Anthony Raj, the right which Anthony Raj had as a owner ceases to be so and also gets extinguished by virtue of registered sale deed dated 19-6-2006 executed by Anthony Raj in favour of the respondents/landlord.
13. Be that as it may, there is no lis between Anthony Raj and the respondent landlords in any Civil Court claiming title to the property in question or the title which has been conferred to the respondent landlord is being questioned by Anthony Raj. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the revision petitioner namely the respondent before the trial Court has utterly failed in proving her claim that there existed no jural relationship.
14. In so far as the decision in the case of Joseph Kantharaj relied upon by the learned Counsel, it is to be noticed that in the said case tenant therein pleaded that he was a tenant in respect of the petition schedule premises therein. During the pendency and continuation of tenancy an agreement of sale came to be executed by the landlord owner in favour of tenant/respondent and thus the tenant claimed that his lesser interest that of a 'tenant' got extinguished and it blossomed itself into a larger interest namely that of a 'purchaser'. It is on this ground it is contended that he ceased to be a tenant. However, the Court below did not accept the said contention and rejected the same which came to be reversed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the facts and circumstances of the said case it was held that it was incumbent upon the Court below to examine whether the said lesser interest got blossomed into larger interest and to examine such question, matter came to be remanded. However, in the instant case, it is not the case of the respondent tenant. Smt. Sarojamma that she has got any better title or interest than what Mr. Anthony Raj possessed, in view of this, I am unable to accede to the request of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the judgment of the Court below has to be reversed.
15. The word of caution given by their lordship's in the said case is required to be quoted which reads as under:
Under Rent Act for eviction should be wary of defendants coming forward with defences of agreement of sale, lest that becomes a stock defence in such petitions. Unless the Court is satisfied the prima facie that the agreement is genuine and defence is bonafide, it should no defer the proceedings for eviction under the Rent Act.
In view of the above caution given by the Hon'ble Apex Court, I am of the considered opinion this is one such stock defence set up by the tenant to stall the eviction proceedings and the same ought not to be countenanced and Court below has rightly rejected said contention and accordingly the same is confirmed.
16. In view of the same I am of the considered opinion that, order of the Court below does not suffer from any infirmity whatsoever. Even otherwise as rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for respondent in the case of Silva Uddin v. Nagaraju : ILR 2004 Kar 4782 referred to supra paragraphs 7 and 8 are clearly applicable to the facts of the case, which has been relied upon by the trial Court. Hence, the order of the Court below does not suffer from any infirmity whatsoever.
17. Re: Point No. 3: In view of the above discussion, the following order is passed.