LEELABAI Vs. SAROJA SURESH SALUNKE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition is filed against the judgment and decree dated 16 t h November, 2019 passed in RR No.1 of 2019 by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gadag; and order dated 28 t h November, 2018 passed in HRC No.2 of 2017 by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Gadag. The petitioner herein is the tenant and the respondent before the Trial Court.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, the parties in this petition is referred to their rank before the Trial Court.

(3.) The petition averments are that the petitioner before the Trial Court is the owner of the schedule premises CTS No.437/D and the respondent is the tenant under the petitioner on a monthly rent of Rs.200/- and residing there since her husband's time, and now she is residing in the said premises over a considerable length of period. The tenancy is monthly tenancy. The petitioner-landlord has requested the respondent-tenant to pay the rent. However, the respondent did not pay the rent and as such the petitioner has issued legal notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act determining the tenancy. Petitioner-landlord also stated that the petition premises is required for her reasonable and bona fide purpose inter alia for personal use and occupation and there is no alternative place. The notice issued by the petitioner to the respondent to vacate and handover the vacant possession of the premises was not served on the respondent. However, the petitioner had taken notice through paper publication and thereafter filed HRC No.2 of 2017 on the file of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Gadag under Section 27(2)(a) and (r) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') and sought for eviction of the respondent-tenant from the schedule premises and to put petitioner- landlord in possession of the same and also sought for arrears of rent from 1970 till 01 s t January, 2017 amounting to Rs.1,12,800/- and also sought for costs. After service of summons to the respondent, the respondent appeared and resisted the petition by contending that the rent is not Rs.200/- per month as stated in the petition but it is Rs.20/- per month and there is no arrears of rent as such. It was the contention of the respondent-tenant that the husband of the petitioner-Suresh was the original owner of the premises in question and the respondent-tenant is residing there since longer period. The said Suresh transferred ownership of the schedule premises to the petitioner in the year 1990 and the respondent-tenant became the owner. During the lifetime of the husband of the petitioner-landlord, the respondent-tenant used to pay a monthly rent of Rs.20/- as per oral agreement, and rent was paid till 1995. Thereafter, the petitioner has refused to receive the rent from the respondent- tenant.