B B PATIL Vs. B ESHWARAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) petitioner-tenant having suffered an order of eviction in the trial court and being unsuccessful in the revision filed by him in the district court against the order of the trial court has filed this revision petition under Section 115, C.P.C. questioning the correctness and legality of the concurrent orders of the two courts-bclow directing his eviction from the ground floor of a building in hubli in which he is running an ent nursing home from about 1974.

(2.) this revision petition filed on 27-7-1986 was dismissed on 16-4-1987 on the ground that no second revision lies under Section 115, C.P.C. against the order of the first revisional court. In view of the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court that a second revision under Section 115, C.P.C. lies against the revisional order of the district judge, the revision petition is again revived on 21-1-1991. Learned counsel previously appearing for the petitioner was late Sri Shirgurkar. He died on 29-7-1988. Sri Shirgurkar himself had filed W.P. No. 8282/1987 in June, 1987 after the revision petition was dismissed on 16-4-1987. This aspect deserves to be noticed at the outset in the light of the stand taken by the petitioner justifying non-payment of rent admittedly payable by him to the respondents at Rs. 350/- per month continuously for about 49 months from February 1987 to 14-2-1991 amounting to Rs. 17,150/- which is paid on 27-2-1991.

(3.) after the revival of the revision petition on 21-1-1991, petitioner has filed la. No. Iv under Section 151, C.P.C. read with Rule 35 of the Karnataka rent control rules, 1961 (for short 'the rules') on 14-2-1991 praying for dismissal of the revision petition by taking into consideration certain subsequent events emerging from certain documents and photographs produced with it for the reasons stated in his affidavit. The said prayer of the petitioner is opposed by the respondents by filing counter to the same. About one month after filing i.a. No. Iv, petitioner has filed i.a. No. V under order 26, Rule 9 read with Section 151, CPC and Rule 35 of the rules praying that a commissioner be appointed for making local inspection of house built on plot No. 94 bearing sy. No. 75/2 at m.h.b. colony, nagashettikoppa extension, visveswara nagar, hubli-29 subsequently acquired and owned by the 1st respondent and to draw a sketch of the premises of that house in order to know the accommodation available in that house. Even the said prayer of the petitioner is opposed by the respondents by filing counter to the same.