D K ASHWATNANARAYANA SETTY Vs. M RAMNATHAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision petition is preferred against the order dated 27th June, 1989 passed by the learned District Judge in Revision Petition No. 64/1987 confirming the order dated 4-8-1987 passed by the learned Munsiff, Davangere in H.R.C. No. 6/1983 allowing LA. No. VII filed by respondents 2 to 4 for impleading.

(2.) The first respondent-M. Ramnathappa has filed H.R.C. No. 6/1983 for eviction of the petitioners herein on the ground falling under Section 21(l)(h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The case pleaded by Sri Ramnalhappa is that the schedule premises in a partition has fallen to the share of respondents 2 to 4; that it is required for their bona fide use and occupation for carrying on a business by them. The petition was filed in the year 1983. According to the case of the petitioners/tenants, Sri Ramnathappa had no concern with the schedule property and he was not the landlord and that the partition had taken place as long back as on 8-5-1976 itself and subsequent to the partition they have been paying the rents to respondents 2 to 4 to whose share the schedule properties had fallen.

(3.) As the pleadings stood at this, respondents 2 to 4 filed an application for being impleaded as petitioners in the case under Order 1, Rule 10 of C.P.C. The Trial Court has allowed it on the ground that they are the necessary parties to the proceeding because they are the landlords of the premises and the learned District Judge has affirmed the order.