K L VENUGOPAL Vs. KHATOOM BEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is by the fifth respondent in HRC. No.738 of 1961 on the file of the Court of the Principal First Munsiff, Bangalore. It is directed against an Order made bv the learned Additional District Judge, Bangalore in HRCA. No.237 of 1964, on 10-1-1967. That appeal had been preferred by the petitioner herein against a decree for eviction made in HRC. No.738/61 aforementioned.

(2.) The few facts relevant for the disposal of the petition are as follows: The original petition for eviction was preferred by respondents 1 and 2 herein against respondents 3 to 6 and the petitioner, in respect of certain shop premises described in the schedule to the petition. The case of the petioner therein is that the premises were leased to one K.C.Ramiah on a monthly rent of Rs.150 in his 'personal capacity'. The said K.C. Pamiah died on 26-6-1961. After his death, respondents 1 to 4 who are his legal representatives became the tenants of the premises. With regard to the fifth respondent, it is alleged that he has been made a party "as he claims adversely to the interests of respondents 1 to 4 and is stated to bo in actual possession of the premises since the death of the deceased tenant". The eviction from the premises has also been claimed on the ground of the premises being required for the personal use and occupation of the landladies. It is further the case of the petitioner that the deceased tenant during his life time "permitted respondent 5 to occupy the schedule premises. This was done without the written consent of the petitioners.

(3.) Further respondent 5 by the fact of his possession is carrying on a new business in the schedule premises under the name and style of K. L. Venugopal. The old business carried on by the deceased no longer exists in the eye of law and, as a maftter of fact in the schedule premises. By these arts the respondents are liable to be vacated." In addition to these averments, the case is also based on non-payment of rents.' With this question we are not concerned in the present case.