K.R. Kanakarathnam Chetty & Ors. Vs. B.G. Kumaravelu (Dead) by LRs & Anr.
EmailAppeal: Review Petition No. 385 of 2001
in
Civil Appeal No. 40 of 1996
With
Special Leave Petition (C) No. 14469 of 1999
in
Civil Appeal No. 40 of 1996
With
Special Leave Petition (C) No. 14469 of 1999
Petitioner: K.R. Kanakarathnam Chetty & Ors.
Respondent: B.G. Kumaravelu (Dead) by LRs & Anr.
Apeal: Review Petition No. 385 of 2001
in
Civil Appeal No. 40 of 1996
With
Special Leave Petition (C) No. 14469 of 1999
in
Civil Appeal No. 40 of 1996
With
Special Leave Petition (C) No. 14469 of 1999
Judges: D.P. MOHAPATRA & SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Aug 24, 2001
Head Note:
RENT CONTROL & EVICTION
Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (22 of 1961)
Eviction of tenant – Appropriate forum. Held that in view of various decisions, landlords can file suit in civil court. Question of limitation and res-judicata in this case dispensed with if landlord files civil suit. (Para 4)
Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (22 of 1961)
Eviction of tenant – Appropriate forum. Held that in view of various decisions, landlords can file suit in civil court. Question of limitation and res-judicata in this case dispensed with if landlord files civil suit. (Para 4)
Cases Reffered:
1. B.G. Kumaravelu & Anr. v. K.R. Kanakarathnam Chetty & Ors. (JT 1996 (1) SC 30) (Para 2)
JUDGEMENT:
Order
1. We have heard Mr. S.S. Javeli, learned senior counsel for the landlords who are petitioners/appellants herein and Mr. R.F. Nariman, learned senior counsel appearing for the tenants who are respondent herein.
2. The thrust of the argument of Mr. Javeli is that in the facts and circumstances of the case as prevailing at present, an anomalous situation has arisen which leaves the landlords without a forum for enforcing their right to evict the tenants. According to Shri Javeli, in the present situation, the landlords can neither approach the rent control court nor the civil court for eviction of the tenants. Such a situation has arisen due to the change in the legal position relating to applicability of the Karnataka Rent Control Act to the case, as decided by the Karnataka High Court and also this Court from time to time. Mr. Javeli contended that in order to get over the anomalous situation, this Court should review its judgment in B.G. Kumaravelu & Anr. v. K.R. Kanakarathnam Chetty & Ors. (JT 1996 (1) SC 30).
3. Shri R.F. Nariman submitted that the settled legal position relating to the case as prevailing now, the landlords can approach the civil court for eviction of the tenants, if they so like. The learned senior counsel very fairly submitted that taking into account the prolonged litigations between the parties, this Court may order for expeditious disposal of the suit by the trial court within a time frame. He further submitted that if the landlords file a fresh suit for eviction of the tenants – respondents, the respondents will not take the plea of limitation and res judicata in the suit.
4. Considering the contentions raised by learned senior counsel for the parties, we dispose of the review petition as well as the special leave petition by passing the following order:
If the landlords – petitioners herein, file a fresh suit in the civil court competent to entertain the same within four weeks after serving a copy of the plaint on the defendants or their legal representatives, the trial court without issuing any further notice of filing of the suit to the defendants, will fix a date of hearing, give notice of the same to the defendants or their advocate and proceed to dispose of the suit on merits in accordance with law within six months of the date of filing the suit. It is made clear that it will not be open to the defendants to raise the plea of limitation or res judicata in the suit and if the defendants have already been served with notice of termination of the lease under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, such objection will also not be available for the defendants to raise.
5. The review petition as well as the special leave petition are disposed of on the above terms. No costs.
1. We have heard Mr. S.S. Javeli, learned senior counsel for the landlords who are petitioners/appellants herein and Mr. R.F. Nariman, learned senior counsel appearing for the tenants who are respondent herein.
2. The thrust of the argument of Mr. Javeli is that in the facts and circumstances of the case as prevailing at present, an anomalous situation has arisen which leaves the landlords without a forum for enforcing their right to evict the tenants. According to Shri Javeli, in the present situation, the landlords can neither approach the rent control court nor the civil court for eviction of the tenants. Such a situation has arisen due to the change in the legal position relating to applicability of the Karnataka Rent Control Act to the case, as decided by the Karnataka High Court and also this Court from time to time. Mr. Javeli contended that in order to get over the anomalous situation, this Court should review its judgment in B.G. Kumaravelu & Anr. v. K.R. Kanakarathnam Chetty & Ors. (JT 1996 (1) SC 30).
3. Shri R.F. Nariman submitted that the settled legal position relating to the case as prevailing now, the landlords can approach the civil court for eviction of the tenants, if they so like. The learned senior counsel very fairly submitted that taking into account the prolonged litigations between the parties, this Court may order for expeditious disposal of the suit by the trial court within a time frame. He further submitted that if the landlords file a fresh suit for eviction of the tenants – respondents, the respondents will not take the plea of limitation and res judicata in the suit.
4. Considering the contentions raised by learned senior counsel for the parties, we dispose of the review petition as well as the special leave petition by passing the following order:
If the landlords – petitioners herein, file a fresh suit in the civil court competent to entertain the same within four weeks after serving a copy of the plaint on the defendants or their legal representatives, the trial court without issuing any further notice of filing of the suit to the defendants, will fix a date of hearing, give notice of the same to the defendants or their advocate and proceed to dispose of the suit on merits in accordance with law within six months of the date of filing the suit. It is made clear that it will not be open to the defendants to raise the plea of limitation or res judicata in the suit and if the defendants have already been served with notice of termination of the lease under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, such objection will also not be available for the defendants to raise.
5. The review petition as well as the special leave petition are disposed of on the above terms. No costs.
