ADIL ABBAS Vs. ABDUL KAREEM BAGMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge in these two revisions is to the order dated 15-12-1999 passed by the XV Addl. Small Causes Judge, Mayo Hall, Bangalore in H. R. C. No. 10239/96 allowing the petition filed under Sec. 21 (1) (a) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (the repealed Act for short) and dismissing the petition filed under Sec. 21 (1) (h) of the repealed Act. The landlord has preferred revision against the order dismissing the petition filed under clause (h) whereas the revision by the tenant is against the order allowing the petition under Clause (a) of Sec. 21 (1) of the repealed Act.

(2.) FOR the sake of convenience in the course of this order landlord is referred to as the petitioner and the tenant as respondent.

(3.) THERE is no dispute as to the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. There is however dispute relating the quantum of rent, the tenant claiming it to be Rs. 500/- and not Rs. 800/- as stated by the landlord in his petition. The tenancy was entered into between the father of the petitioner and the respondent tenant. After the demise of the father of the petitioner, the petitioner became the landlord in respect of the petition premises and he was recognised as such by the tenant. There is no dispute on this aspect between the parties. Before the court-below the petitioner filed H. R. C. 10239 of 1996 under clauses (a) and (h) of Sec. 21 (1) of the repealed Act claiming that the tenant is a defaulter in payment of rent and also that he requires the petition premises for his own bonafide use and occupation. The court-below on hearing the parties allowed the petition filed under clause (a) of the repealed Act but dismissed the petition filed under clause (h) of the repealed Act. Being aggrieved both the petitioner-landlord and the respondent tenant have come up in revision before this court.