Read Judgment
Supreme Court of India was dealing with the petition challenging the Judgment and final order dated 19-4-2022 in CivilRevision Petition No.500/2013 passed by the High Courtof Karnataka at Bengaluru.
Brief Facts:
In response to a landlord's eviction complaint, the tenant claimed that there was no legal termination of lease under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The Trial Court dismissed the case after accepting this contention. Allowing the plaintiff-revision landlord's petition under Section 18 of the Karnataka Small Cause Courts Act, the Karnataka High Court held that, under Section 111(a) of the Act, the lease would be determined by the passage of time and that, in such circumstances, notice of termination under Section 106 of the Act was not required.Referring to Shanti Prasad Devi &Anr. Vs. Shankar Mahto&Ors., the High Court held that mere acceptance of rent by landlord after the expiry of the period of lease would not amount to waiver of the termination of lease. As a result, the defendant petitioned the Supreme Court for Special Leave.
SC’s Observations:
After hearing both the sides SC observed thatthe impugned order was passed by the High Court in exercise of its power of revision under Section 18 of the Karnataka Small Cause Courts Act.
SC stated that it needsno reiteration that another view is possible based onthe evidence on record can be no ground for the HighCourt to interfere with an order of court(s) below inexercise of its revisional jurisdiction.
SC further stated that the obligation to decide on theaforesaid question unfailingly, was discharged by thetrial court. This has resulted in perverse appreciationof evidence which led to a conclusion against the weightof evidence further leading to error of law. In suchcircumstances, theHigh Court was right and justified in re-appreciating theevidence in exercise of its revisional power.
SC stated that “In view of the evidence thus obtained and taking into account the decision in Shanti Prasad Devi’s case (supra) the High Court held that mere acceptance of the rent by the landlord after the expiry of the period of lease would not amount to waiver of the termination of lease. Relying on a Division Bench decision of the High Court in M.C. Mohammed Vs. Smt. Gowrammarendered relying on the decision in Pooran Chand Vs.Motilal &Ors., held that on expiry of the term fixed under the deed the tenant would not be entitled to statutory notice under Section 106 of the TP Act. It was found that on determination of the lease by efflux of time no further termination of the tenancy by issuing a statutory notice to bring termination of a lease already terminated is necessary.”
SC Held:
SC held that “As the judgment and decree ofthe Civil Court was not ‘according to law,’ the HighCourt was certainly within its rights to set aside thedecree in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Thestated consequential directions by the High Court arenothing but a necessary sequel of such conclusions and findings.In view of the above conclusion this Special Leave
Petition must fail as it is devoid of merits.”
Case Title: Sri K.M. Manjunath v. Sri Erappa G Dead Through Lrs.
Bench: J. C.T. Ravikumar and J. Sudhanshu Dhulia
Citation:PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) NO.10700 OF 2022
Decided on: 24th June, 2022
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure
0 Comments