LAKSHMI DEVI Vs. G SATYANARAYANA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) this is landlords' revision petition. Petitioner 1 is the mother and petitioners 2 and 3 are her sons. They filed an eviction petition under Section 21(1)(d), (h) and (o) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the act) alleging that the premises in question is a non-residential one; that the premises was leased out to one gangoji Rao who was the father of respondents 1 to 3 and husband of respondent 4; that gangoji Rao was carrying on a non-vegetarian restaurant; that after his death the lease in question lapsed; that the respondents who are the legal representatives of gangoji Rao instead of handing over vacant possession of the premises in question to the landlords continued to be in possession of the same by trespassing on the property and thus they are trespassers; that the premises in question is required by the landlords for their bona fide use and occupation to start silk saree and cut pieces goods business in the said premises, etc. The relevant paras of the eviction petition are paras 6,10 and 12 which are extracted below:

(2.) after service of notice on the respondents, they filed an application undersection 151, C.P.C. on 25-8-1981 requesting the trial court to consider the maintainability of the petition as a preliminary issue. On 11-9-1981 the trial court considered the application filed by the respondents to reject the eviction petition on the ground that the same was not maintainable as the said court had no jurisdiction to decide the eviction petition. After considering the same, the trial court held that the petition filed by the petitioners as maintainable. The order reads thus:

(3.) the respondents had filed their objection statement also. They took a stand in the objection statement that they are not trespassers, but they were tenants along with their father gangoji Rao when he was alive. After his death, they are continuing as tenants and they are carrying on vegetarian restaurant instead of non-vegetarian restaurant. It is further alleged in the objection statement that the landlords inspite of they being aware of the fact that there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioners and the respondents filed the eviction petition with a view to harass the tenants as they did not accede to the illegal demand of the petitioners for higher rent. Apart from contending that the respondents are tenants and the petitioners arc landlords of the premises in question, the tenants also contended in the objection statement that the need as alleged in the eviction petition is a mere desire and, therefore, the landlords do not require the premises in question and even if it is required, the premises is not suitable for their purpose. Thus contending they requested the trial court to dismiss the petition. Paras 3, 5 and 8 of the objection statement are relevant for considering the stand of the respondents/tenants. The relevant paras read as under: "3. In regard to the averments in paragraph (5) of the petition, it is incorrect to state that the schedule premises was leased only for purposes of running the vegetarian restaurant. It is submitted the premises was leased to the respondents' late father p. Gangoji rao, for the purposes of running a non-vegetarian restaurant, a military hotel. Even though the lease was in the name of respondents' late father p, gangoji Rao the business was being carried on by these respondents along with the late p. Gangoji rao, who himself was of an advanced age the business that was being carried on in the schedule premises was a joint family business. 5. It is respectfully submitted the petitioners approached the respondents in or about the last week of July 1979 and demanded a further advance of Rs. 3,000/- from these respondents and also an enhancement of rent in a sum of Rs. 400/-. These respondents expressed (heir willingness to pay a little increase in the rent and about Rs. 1,000/- as further advance but the petitioners being dissatisfied with this offer chose to get the quit notice issued with untenable please. As such the averment in the petition that these respondents concealed the fact of the death of their father to the petitioners and they have been in unlawful possession of the suit schedule premises are all contrary to the facts and averred only with (he sole intention of harassing these respondents. 8. These respondents submit that in view of what is stated supra the avennent that on the death of p, gangoji rao, the tenancy was automatically determined is preposterous and the same is denied as false. These respondents were recognised as tenants subsequent to the death of p. Gangoji rao."