NEELAWA Vs. BABURAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is filed by the landlord challenging the order dated 9-9-1997 passed in Rent Revision No. 107 of 1995.

(2.) TENANT filed a petition under Section 43 (1) of the Karnataka Rent control Act seeking for orders before the First Additional Munsiff, Dharwad in HRC No. 20 of 1992. In the petition it has been stated that the petition premises is situated near Gandhi Chowk, Dattatreya Temple, dharwad, and the petitioner is running a tailoring class in the said premises and he is paying a monthly rental of Rs. 35/ -. In the portion of the petition schedule premises i. e. , in verandah there are three holes and the verandah is in dilapidated condition. Petitioner filed a petition in HRC No. 88 of 1988 seeking for an order to repair the said verandah. A Court Commissioner was appointed and he submitted his report. The hdmc issued a notice in this regard, which was subsequently cancelled by an order of the High Court. The landlady with the help of her husband demolished the verandah in the month of September 1989. In view of the demolition the petitioner has no way to reach the premises. Respondent entered appearance and contended that HRC No. 11 of 1985 was filed under Section 21 (l) (k) of the Act. It is also stated that the said wall has not yet been demolished. The Trial Judge framed three points and answered the first two points in negative. In conclusion he dismissed the petition.

(3.) THE tenant filed a revision to the District Judge. The learned District judge in the impugned order has allowed the revision thereby setting aside the order of the learned Munsiff in HRC No. 20 of 1992. He has further directed the landlady to restore the facility of verandah within three months from the date of his order. This order is challenged before me.