A S RASHID ATUNED Vs. K GOPULAKRISHNA KAMATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This 5-Year old Revision Petition filed under Section 115, C.P.C. arises out of an eviction petition filed by one Dr. A.S. Rashid Ahmed of Mangalore nearly 20 years back in H.R.C. No. 17/1971 in the Court of the Munsiff, Karkala (for short 'the Munsiff or 'the trial Court') against the respondents seeking their eviction under clause (h) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Karaataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') from eviction petition schedule house-cum-landed property situate near the Munsiffs Court, Karkala and described in the eviction petition Schedule 'A' as "tiled storeyed house (Bearing Door No. 539/Ward II of Karkala Town Panchayat) including well, yards and other appurtenances, situate near the Munsiffs Court, Karkala Kasba of Karkala Taluk (tor short 'the premises')." The litigation initiated by filing the said eviction petition has had a chequered career during the past 20 years. Original petitioner-landlord having died during the pendency of this Revision Petition, his widow and children are brought on record as his legal representatives and they have prosecuted this Revision Petition which is described by their learned counsel Sri B.P. Holla as "heart burning case" as, according to him, the original landlord and subsequently his Legal Representatives are prevented from using a spacious house which he repeatedly described as a palatial building consisting of ground floor and a first floor covering a total plinth area of 56.44 sqs. and land appurtenant to the house situate in the heart of Karkala Town and they are not even paid the rent of that valuable property although it is a paltry sum of Rs. 100 and odd for the lands and Rs. 25/- for the building. He has raised in the course of his elaborate and painstaking arguments certain points to which reference will be made shortly.

(2.) The original landlord claimed eviction of the respondents from the premises by contending in bis eviction petition dated 2-8-1971 that the premises were obtained on monthly lease by late K. Ganapathy Kamath-husband of 4th respondent and father of the other respondents from his mother Tahirabi for the purpose of his residence under a registered partition deed dated 23-1-1945, the premises and some other property were allotted to the share of the petitioner and the lessee K. Ganapathy Kamath attorned the petitioner as his landlord and continued in occupation of the premises on monthly lease under the petitioner till his death. After the death of K. Ganapathy Kamath, the respondents as his heirs have continued in occupation of the premises agreeing to pay a rent of Rs. 25/- per month at the end of every calendar month. Petitioner was living with his wife and children in a rented house at Mangalore and his landlord has been pressing him to vacate the house in his occupation since some years. Therefore, the petitioner requested the respondents to vacate the premises and also issued a lawyer's notice dated 31-12-1970 terminating their tenancy and calling them to quit and surrender vacant possession of the premises to him on 31-1-1971 by informing them in that notice that he had no other house at Mangalore or Karkala and he desires to settle down at Karkala with his family as the premises is the only house belonging to him and it is suitable for his residence and, therefore, he was in reasonable and bona fide requirement of the premises for his own use and occupation. Although the said notice is served on the respondents, they have not vacated the premises and instead they have sent a frivolous reply contending that the lease is an agricultural tenancy and, therefore, he was obliged to file the eviction petition.

(3.) Respondents resisted the eviction petition by contending in their objection statement filed by the first respondent in his individual capacity and also as General Power of Attorney Holder of the other respondents that the property leased to late K. Ganapathy Kamath was not only the house but also the agricultural lands bearing Sy. No. 89/2,6 and 7 of Karkala kasba village consisting of paddy Fields, garden and house on term of lease for three years from 15-5-1931 under an agreement of lease dated 8-4-1931 and subsequently on an yearly rent of Rs. 250/- and subsequently under another lease deed dated 17-3-1935 at reduced rent of Rs. 150/- per year which he was paying and obtaining receipts from Tahirabi, After the death of Tahirabi, petilioners's father himself took a "chalgeni" lease from K. Ganapathy Kamath on 20-2-1950 in respect of same property for an yearly rent of Rs. 180/- and he was paying the same under receipt issued by the petitioners' father. Therefore, the leased premises constituted an agricultural lease and not the lease of a house on an yearly rent of Rs, 25/- as alleged in the petition. They further alleged that after the death of K. Ganapathy Kamath, petitioners raised the rent to Rs. 200/- and later to Rs, 300/- per year which the first respondent was paying regularly and obtaining receipts from the petitioner. They also pleaded that the petitioners alleged requirement of the premises for his own use and occupation was neither reasonable for bona fide and, therefore, he was net entitled to the reliefs he had sought against them in the petition. He also raised the plea of jurisdiction by contending that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to deal with an agricultural lease as it was governed under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act.