A. MUKAMBIKA Vs. A. PREMANANDA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEFORE considering these revision petitions, it is necessary to note that CRP No. 2570/1983 was dismissed earlier as not maintainable. But subsequently, the Supreme Court held that a second revision lies to this Court and consequently such revision petitions were revived. There was omission to revive CRP No. 257/83 wherein Meera Bai and others are the petitioners.

(2.) ALL these revision petitions are filed by the tenants of the respective premises under their occupation. There was a common evidence and a common order was passed by the trial Court as well as District Court. Hence I am dealing all of them together.

(3.) FIRST I shall proceed to decide the question involved in CRP No. 2337/83. The premises in occupation of the tenants here is Door No. 9-316 of Kasba Bazar village, Mukoyaprana Temple Road, Mangalore, and it is part of the building in which the other tenants are residing, i.e. No. 9-317. There is no dispute that originally one Raghavendra Naik was the tenant in respect of this residential premises; monthly rent being Rs. 14/-. The landlord purchased this premises along with other premises in question here, and thereafter, Raghvendra Naik had attorned the tenancy to the landlord. According to the landlord, he purchased the entire property for his bonafide use and occupation, and also to put up a dairy farm and poultry farm. It is the case of the landlord that in his house there are altogether six members, including college and school going children.