RABIYABI Vs. UTTAM NAGAPPA PALANKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is filed by the tenant challenging the order dated 13.3.1995 passed in CRP No. 232/84.

(2.) HRC No. 109/82 was filed by Smt. Halimabai, landlady against Uttam Nagappa Palankar, the tenant, seeking for eviction under Sections 21(1)(h) and (f) of the Act. She died during the pendency of the petition and her legal representatives were brought on record. It is stated in the petition that the schedule premises is owned by the petitioner. It was leased to the respondent-tenant by way of an agreement dated 26.4.1971. Tenant was to construct building worth Rs. 10,000/- on the land and was to stay there for 10 years and therafter vacate the premises. Tenant constructed the building and occupied it on 16.3.1972. The period of 10 years expired on 16.3.1982. After expiry of 10 years the landlady requested tenant to deliver the possession of the premises and the tenant asked for some time to vacate. The agreed monthly rental was fixed at Rs. 475/-. Thereafter, the tenant refused to vacate the premises.

(3.) TENANT denied the allegations. He stated that a sum of Rs. 475/- was payable as rent. Father of petitioner 3 deceased Maktum Khan executed a permanent lease on 20.3.1972. Tenant has spent Rs. 35,000/- for construction of the building. He is a permanent tenant and hence eviction is not possible. Karnataka Rent Control Act is not applicable to the facts of the case. It was further contended that the deceased Maktum Khan had four daughters and they were not impleaded. Tenant (sic) is divided between his father and brothers and had no interest in the property owned by them. Respondent 2 is not residing as a tenant and was doing business in second hand books and closed his business. Respondent 1 purchased the old books from respondent 2 and appointed respondent No. 2 for the purpose of managing the business and to give training to the sons of respondent 1 in selling these books. It is alleged that respondent No. 1 was doing business under the name and style Suvarna Stores in different premises and there is not subleasing of property to respondent 3. Thirteen persons are depending on the tenant and he would suffer greater hardship. Respondent 2 filed same or similar objection and contended that he is looking after the business of sons of respondent 1 and giving training to them. Respondent 3 filed separate objections and contended that he owned 5 shop premises and there is no necessity for him to become sub-tenant of respondent No. 1.