ISMAIL Vs. SUSHILA BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is filed by the legal representatives of the original tenant in h. r. c. No. 4 of 1988 on the file of principal munsiff, bantwal, aggrieved by the Order dated 13-4-1999 in revision (rent) petition No. 54 of 1997 on the file of I additional district judge, mangalore, allowing revision (rent) petition and directing the petitioners who are the legal representatives of the original tenant to vacate the schedule premises by reversing the Order dated 1-2-1997 in h. r. c. No. 4 of 1988 on the file of principal munsiff, bantwal.

(2.) A few facts which are relevant for deciding the questions involved in this revision petition are stated herein. One ummer saheb was a tenant under the respondents 1 to 3 who are said to be the landowners of the schedule property. The landowners who are referred to as landlords have filed h. r. c. No. 4 of 1988 under Section 21 (l) (h) of the Karnataka rent control act, 1961 ('the act' for short) seeking eviction of the respondent-tenant from the schedule premises for their bona fide use and occupation. The premises in question is admittedly a non-residential premises which measures more than 14 square metres. The principal munsiff, bantwal, dakshina kannada by his Order dated 1st february, 1997 has dismissed the petition holding that the landlords have not established their case under Section 21 (l) (h) of the act. The landlords have filed the revision (rent) petition No. 54 of 1997 on the file of 1st additional district judge, dakshina kannada, mangalore. During the pendency of revision (rent) petition, the respondent-tenant therein died on 26-11-1997. The landlords have filed necessary application to bring the legal representatives of the deceased tenant on record. The said application was allowed and l. rs were brought on record. Subsequently thereafter, the petitioners-landlords have filed a memo dated 2-3-1999 bringing out to the notice of the court the decision of the apex court to the effect that the legal representatives of the original tenant of a non-residential premises cannot contest the eviction proceedings. The same has been in venkatesh Thimmaiah Gurjalkar v S. S. Hawaldar. On the basis of the said decision of the apex court, the first revisional court namely, the district judge, dakshina kannada, mangalore has allowed the revision petition and set aside the Order of dismissal of the h. r. c. No. 4 of 1988 by the learned principal munsiff, bantwal and consequently directed the respondents-legal representatives of the deceased tenant to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the schedule premises to the landlord within two months.

(3.) AGGRIEVED by the said order, the present revision petition is filed by the legal representatives of the said tenant.