VENKATAMMA Vs. Y.C. KRISHNAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Vasanth Madhav, learned Counsel for petitioner and Sri Murali Babu, learned Counsel for respondents. The petitioner-tenant has filed this revision petition against the order of eviction made under Section 27(2)(a), 27(2)(b), 27(2)(o) and 27(2)(r) of Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 (for short, 'the Act'). The petition was contested by respondent on the ground that she is holder of Agreement of Sale and she has been in possession of schedule premises in part performance of Agreement of Sale dated 3-1-1980 and she has filed O.S. No. 247 of 2010 for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 3-1-1980.

(2.) Sri Vasanth Madhav, learned Counsel for petitioner submits that finding recorded by the Trial Court on jural relationship is improper. The Trial Court has not considered the petition under the provisions of Section 27(2)(a), 27(2)(b), 27(2)(o) and 27(2)(r) of the Act. The learned Counsel submits that there is bona fide civil dispute between parties. Therefore, landlord cannot seek decree of eviction till the suit for specific performance filed O.S. No. 247 of 2010 is decided.

(3.) During the pendency of proceedings, petitioner-tenant had made an application under Section 43 of the Act. The Trial Court dismissed the same on 8-10-2010. The order was not challenged by petitioner-tenant. Therefore, petitioner-tenant cannot be permitted to contend that there is no jural relationship of landlord and tenant. As could be seen from the objection statement filed by petitioner-tenant before the Court below, apart from ascertaining that she is in lawful possession and enjoyment of suit property as an agreement holder, she has not denied averments regarding requirement pleaded by respondent-landlord. In these circumstances, the Trial Court had no other option but to grant decree for eviction.