SUBRAMANYA Vs. JM ESWARAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These revision petitions are filed by the tenants challenging the order dated 3-12-2009 under which the interlocutory applications namely I. A.No. 14, and I. A.No.7 and I.A.No.15 filed by the landlords came to be allowed and revision petitions filed by the tenants before the District Judge, I Fast Track Court, Shimoga came to be dismissed as not maintainable and revision petitioners-tenants were granted three months time to vacate and hand over vacant possession of petition schedule premises to the landlord.

(2.) For sake of convenience the parties shall be referred to as per ranks before trial Court (hereinafter referred to as Rent Court). The respondents herein claiming to be landlords of petition schedule premises filed eviction petitions in HRC 71/1987, 83/87,87/87 and 103/ 87 under Section 21(l)(a) and(j) of Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 1961, Act). It was contended by them that entire property wherein the petitionp schedule premises are located is situated at Laskhar Mohalla now called as Savarkarnagar is belonging to them and it is in occupation of the tenants and tenants were irregular and chronic defaulters in the matter of rentals and were withholding rents from October-1984 and failed to pay arrears of rent in spite of repeated demands and as such a notice dated 1-3-1987 came to be issued calling upon the tenants to pay the arrears of rent from October, 1984. It was also contended that petitioners intended to demolish the existing construction and for the said purpose they reasonably and bona fide required the schedule premises.

(3.) On service of notice respondents-tenants appeared before trial Court and filed their detailed objection statements and pleaded that there was no jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioners and respondents and a specific contention was taken that they are tenants under Jadedevara Mutt which belonged to Kuruba community and they were paying and have paid rents to Jadedevara Mutt. The requirement pleaded by the petitioners was also denied. On the basis of the pleadings trial Court framed following points for its consideration: