CHANDRAVADANA BAI Vs. MANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) the landlady has filed this revision petition. According to her, the respondent is the tenant of the schedule premises. Eviction is sought under Section 21(1)(a) and (h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act. The eviction petition was rejected mainly on the ground that the petitioner has not proved the tenancy of the respondent.

(2.) earlier the petitioner seems to have sent a notice to the respondent demandingrent and possession. To this the respondent had sent a reply asserting that she vas not the tenant of the schedule premises. In the eviction petition also the respondent has filed a counter as early as in the year 1981 stating that she is not the tenant, but her husband is the tenant. In the course of the trial the petitioner as P.W. 1 has asserted that respondent was a tenant while the respondent asserted that she was not the tenant, but her husband. The trial court has held that the petitioner has failed to establish the fact that the respondent was a tenant.

(3.) in this petition, the main contention raised is that the definition of 'tenant' includesthe husband and the wife and therefore the claim of the petitioner should have been accepted. I cannot agree with this contention. 'Tenant' is defined under Section 3(r) of the Rent Control Act whereunder 'tenant' means any person by whom or on whose account rent is payable for a premises and includes the surviving spouse etc. Therefore, unless it is established that the rent was being paid by the respondent or on her account, it cannot be said that she was a tenant. In case the respondent's husband is the actual tenant who was paying the rent, the respondent will fall within the definition of 'tenant' only after the death of her husband. As observed by the trial court there was no difficulty for the petitioner to implead the husband of the respondent in the face of the plea raised by the respondent. The petitioner has not established that the rent was being paid by the respondent at any time. In these circumstances, it is not possible to proceed with the matter on merits.