Page 1

1

NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.  5569   OF 2014 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.26741 of  2011]

K. Narayanappa (D) By Lrs. ..            Appellant(s)

-vs-

R. Prakash ..            Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

C. NAGAPPAN, J.  

1. Leave granted.

2. This  appeal  is  directed  against  the  order  dated  

9.2.2011  passed  by  the  High  Court  of  Karnataka  at  

Bangalore in H.R.R.P. No.246 of 2010.

Page 2

2

3. Briefly the facts are as follows : Narayanappa while  

alive along with his two sons namely the appellants 1 and  

2 herein filed petition in HRC No.32 of 2006 under Section  

27(2)(a)(c)(o)(p)(r) and Section 31(1)(c) of the Karnataka  

Rent Act seeking eviction of the first respondent herein on  

the premise that Narayanappa was the absolute owner of  

the  premises  bearing  no.15,  new  no.20  situated  at  

Hoovadigara Galli, Chikpet, Bangalore measuring 25 x 25  

ft. with dilapidated structure and he entered into a lease  

deed dated 29.5.1967 permitting Ramaiah, the late father  

of respondent no.1 herein, to demolish the old structure  

and put up new structure and put him in possession for 15  

years with monthly rent of Rs.35/- and with the option to  

renew  the  lease  for  further  period  on  agreed  terms.  

Ramaiah  demolished  the  structure  and  built  a  new  

building  and  let  it  out  to  several  persons  and  was  

collecting the rents.  It is further averred in the Eviction  

Petition that Ramaiah failed to surrender possession after  

fifteen years even after  demand and failed to  pay rent  

also and he died in the year 1986 and Narayanappa called

Page 3

3

upon his widow and children to vacate and they did not do  

so and the respondent no.1 herein admitted the arrears of  

rent and issued cheque for Rs.525/- towards arrear upto  

2001  and  it  was  accounted  for.   On  calculation  it  was  

found that a sum of Rs. 3,500/- was due as arrears of rent  

and Narayanappa issued legal notice dated 5.12.2005 to  

the respondent no.1 herein and others and they failed to  

vacate and in their reply denied the right of the appellants  

to file eviction proceedings which led to the filing of the  

Eviction Petition by the appellants against the respondent  

no.1 herein and others.   Respondent no.1 herein,  in his  

counter filed therein, admitted the lease agreement dated  

29.5.1967  entered  into  between  Narayanappa  and  his  

father Ramaiah and the putting up of new structure by his  

father  and  renting  it  out  to  others.   However,  it  was  

further  averred  in  the  counter  that  after  the  death  of  

Ramaiah, respondent no.1 herein along with respondent  

no.2 in the main petition, were in continuous possession of  

the premises for over 45 years, even after the expiry of 15  

years lease period and thus prescribed title by adverse

Page 4

4

possession and there is  no jural  relationship of landlord  

and tenant between the appellants and them.

4. During  the  pendency  of  the  Eviction  Petition  

Narayanappa died on 13.7.2006 and his wife namely the  

third appellant herein filed an application in I.A. No.7 in  

the Eviction Petition seeking to implead her also as a legal  

representative  of  Narayanappa.   That  application  was  

contested  by  respondent  no.1  herein  by  pleading  that  

Narayanappa died as a bachelor and the appellants herein  

are not his legal heirs.  After inquiry the Trial Court allowed  

the application and the third appellant herein was brought  

on record.  In the trial the first appellant herein examined  

himself  as  PW1 and one Chandrappa was  examined as  

PW2 and Exh.P1 to P14 came to be marked on their side.  

Respondent  no.1  herein  examined  himself  as  RW1  and  

marked documents at R1 and R25 on his side.

5. The  Trial  Court  on  consideration  of  oral  and  

documentary evidence by order dated 27.7.2010 allowed  

the  petition  directing  the  respondent  no.1  herein  and

Page 5

5

others to  pay arrears of  rent  at  the rate of  Rs.35/-  per  

month from 1.12.2001 to the date of the order and further  

directed the respondent no.1 herein and others to quit and  

deliver the vacant possession of the schedule premises to  

the appellants herein, within three months from the date  

of the order.  Respondent no.1 herein preferred revision in  

H.R.R.P. No.246 of 2010 and the High Court after hearing  

both sides allowed the Revision Petition and stayed the  

proceeding in HRC No.32 of 2008 before the Trial Court by  

directing  the  appellants  herein  to  have  their  rights  

adjudicated  before  the  competent  Civil  Court.  

Challenging the said order the appellants have preferred  

the present appeal.

6. The  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  appellants  

contended that appellants 1 and 2 herein were arrayed as  

sons  of   Narayanappa  along  with  him  in  the  Eviction  

Petition  and  all  the  three  appellants  are  the  original  

petitioners  therein  and  later  third  appellant  Sundamma  

was impleaded as wife of late Narayanappa after inquiry  

by the Trial  Court and that  order was never challenged

Page 6

6

and  became  final  and  when  the  jural  relationship  is  

admitted it is respondent no.1 herein to approach the Civil  

Court  seeking  for  decree  that  the  appellants  are  not  

owners of the petition property and the impugned order of  

the High Court relegating the appellants to Civil Court is  

not justifiable and it is liable to be set aside.  Per contra  

Mr.  Sri  Gurukrishna  Kumar,  learned  senior  counsel  

appearing for the respondent no.1 herein, contended that  

Narayanappa  died  as  a  bachelor  and  the  marital  

relationship between third appellant Sundamma and late  

Narayanappa has not been proved and there is no proof  

for the claim of the appellants that Narayanappa was also  

called as Muneshwar Rao and these are issues that are to  

be decided by the competent Civil Court as rightly held by  

the High Court.

7. We carefully considered the rival contentions.  Exh.P1  

is the original lease deed dated 29.5.1967 and as per the  

recitals therein the petition property was let out to late  

Ramaiah, father of respondent no.1 herein, on a monthly  

rent  of  Rs.35/-  by  the  owner  Narayanappa.   The  jural

Page 7

7

relationship  of  landlord  and  tenant  between  late  

Narayanappa and late Ramaiah is thus established and it  

is admitted by respondent no.1 herein as held by Courts  

below.   The  Trial  Court  found  that  the  appellants  

herein/petitioners  established  that  they  require  petition  

premises for  their own use and occupation and ordered  

delivery  of  vacant  possession  to  them  besides  the  

direction  to  pay  the  rental  arrears.   Considering  the  

contention of respondent no.1 herein that the appellants  

herein  are  not  the  legal  heirs  of  original  lessor  

Narayanappa,  the  High  Court  directed  the  appellants  

herein  to  have  their  rights  adjudicated  before  the  

competent Civil Court and thereafter to proceed with the  

Eviction Petition.

8. The  respondent  no.1  herein  in  support  of  his  plea  

produced two documents, namely, Ration card and copy  

of  Registration  certificate  of  Car  bearing  no.KA-05-EX-

2037.  This Registration certificate, which is now annexed  

with the counter affidavit, was not part of record before  

the Courts below and cannot be taken into consideration

Page 8

8

more  particularly  when  it  is  being  disputed.   The  Trial  

Court while dealing with the entries in  the Ration card,  

took  into  consideration  the  registered  Will  executed  by  

late K. Narayanappa, wherein, it is recited that testator is  

K. Narayanappa @ Muneshwar Rao and rendered a finding  

that Narayanappa and Muneshwar Rao are one and the  

same person.    It is also relevant to point out that the Trial  

Court after conducting inquiry, ordered the impleadment  

of  third  appellant  Sundamma as legal  representative of  

deceased  Narayanappa  in  the  Eviction  Petition  and  the  

said order has become final.  In any event, the contention  

of  the  respondent  no.1  herein  that  appellants  1  and  2  

herein are not the sons of late Narayanappa is liable to be  

rejected for the reason that all the three of them jointly  

filed the Eviction Petition against respondent no.1 herein  

and in the petition, appellants 1 and 2 are described as  

sons of late Narayanappa.  In other words Narayanappa  

declared  appellants  1  and  2  herein  as  his  sons  while  

seeking  eviction  of  respondent  no.1  herein.   It  is  also  

pertinent to point out that respondent no.1 herein, in his

Page 9

9

counter filed in the Eviction Petition when Narayanappa  

was alive,  did not raise any objection that appellants 1  

and 2 herein, are not the sons of Narayanappa and on the  

other hand his only contention was that he has prescribed  

title to the petition premises by adverse possession.  The  

High Court misdirected itself in relegating the appellants  

to Civil Court as rightly contended by the learned counsel  

for the appellants and the order is unsustainable.

9. The appeal is allowed and the impugned order of the  

High Court is set aside and the order of the Trial Court is  

restored.  No order as to costs.   

………………………….J. (T.S. Thakur)

……………………………J. (C. Nagappan)

New Delhi; May   9, 2014