NIRMAL KUMAR JAIN Vs. A MOHAMMED NOOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision Petitioner has questioned the correctness and the legality of judgment passed in HRC No. 124 of 2006 by the Chief Judge, Small Causes Court, Bangalore dated 23.10.2009. The parties are referred to as per their rank before Court below.

(2.) The Petitioner initiated eviction proceedings against one Sri Hussain in HRC No. 10437 of 1998 on the file of the 1st Additional Small Causes Judge, Bangalore under the then Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 under Section 21(1)(h) and(j) seeking eviction of Mr. Hussain in respect of premises Shop No. 59, Sultanji Gunta Road, Civil Station, Bangalore which had been morefully, described in the petition as schedule premises in the said petition. It was contended in the said petition that they required the petition schedule premises for their bona fide use and occupation, i.e., 1st Petitioner Mr. Mohammed Noor was without any avocation and intended to start business in cold storage for animal food in the schedule shop as well in the adjacent shops which is under the tenancy of Dr. Jayaprakash and it was contended that it is ideal and suitable for the 1st Petitioner's proposed business and it was contended that keeping this requirement also into consideration the petition schedule property was purchased by them. It was also contended that Respondent is a statutory tenant under Petitioner whereby they claimed no notice of attornment of tenancy is required to be given as provided under the provisions of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 to the Respondent. On service of notice, Respondent therein i.e., Mr. Hussain initially appeared and was represented though Mr. Narayan I. Naik, Advocate and on his no objection to engage any other Advocate Sri Janardhan, Advocate appeared and no statement of objections were filed.

(3.) Thereafterwards, Petitioner 1Mr. Mohammed Noor came to be examined as P.W. 1. There was no cross-examination and it was taken as nil.