K.MUDDANNA SHETTY Vs. STATE OF KARNTAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the landlord is challenging the order passed by the Land Tribunal, by which, it had registered the 3rd respondent as an occupant. In order to come to the conclusion that the 3rd respondent was the tenant, the Tribunal has given the following reasoning: varticular text omittd

(2.) As could be seen from the said reasoning, the Tribunal has merely reiterated the observations that it had made during the spot inspection and has not really furnished any reason. The Tribunal though framed three questions relating to the tenancy, it has not answered the said questions by way of any reasoning. It has merely given a one line answer to the three questions that it had framed.

(3.) In other words, the order of the Tribunal is bereft of any reasons and therefore, cannot be sustained. The impugned order is, therefore, set aside. The matter is remitted to the Land Tribunal with a direction to the Tribunal to record a specific finding as to whether the 3rd respondent was in possession as a tenant as on the relevant date and whether there are any documents to substantiate the said contention.