M ACHUTAN Vs. CARMIN LEENA NORONHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these second revision petitions are filed by the common landlord under Section 115 of the CPC to challenge the common orders passed by the II Additional District Judge, Mangalore, dakshina Kannada District, Mangalore in Revision Petition No. 133/90 and Revision Petition No. 134/90. In passing the said order, the learned II Additional District Judge while allowing both the Rent revision Petitions filed under Section 50 of the Rent Control Act by the tenants, setting aside the common judgment dated 2. 4. 90 in co-relating HRC Petition No. 133/88 and HRC Petition No. 134/88 passed by the Principal Munsiff, Mangalore, in allowing both the petitions under Section 21 (1) (h) of the Act while rejecting the ground under section 21 (1) (o) of the Act in so far as the same related to the second eviction petition. The learned District Judge in allowing both the first revision petitions before him had also dismissed the original eviction petitions in HRC No. 133/1988 and HRC No. 134/1988.

(2.) FOR the purpose of convenience, the petitioner - landlord herein is referred to as the 'landlord' and the respondents - tenants as the 'tenants'. So also, for the purpose of convenience, when the Principal munsiff at Mangalore who had passed the orders at the first instance in the eviction petitions is referred to as the 'trial Court'; the II additional District Judge, Dakshina Kannada District, who had passed the impugned order hereunder challenge is referred to as the 'first revisional Court'.

(3.) THE facts of the case leading to filing of these two revision petitions by the landlord are as hereunder: