PRADEEP Vs. KRISHNAVENI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition is filed by respondents 2 to 5, challenging the Judgment and Decree in Rent Revision No.13/2007 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad, sitting at Hubballi, (hereinafter referred to as First Revisional Court) setting aside the order dtd. 11/1/2007 passed in RCA No.3/2006 on the file of II Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and III JMFC Court, Hubballi, (hereinafter referred to as 'Rent Court') dismissing the petition.

(2.) For the sake of convenience the parties to this revision petition are referred to as per their ranking before the Rent Court.

(3.) Petitioner-landlady averred that, the commercial premises measuring 12 ft X 12 ft situate at Durgadbail Circle, Old-Hubballi, described as petition premises, has been let out to the husband of the respondent No.1 and father of the respondent No.2 to 5. It is further averred that, husband of the petitioner- K.Haridas is the absolute owner of the petition-schedule premises and he died leaving behind the landlady and her children and thereafter, the petitioner succeeded to the petition schedule premises. Petitioner has filed HRC No.131/1996 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) Hubballi, under Sec. 21 (1) (a) (l) and (J) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and during the pendency of the said petition, the husband of the respondent No.1- Jinadatta D. Yalagi died and pursuant to the same, the respondents were brought on record. The said petition came to be dismissed on 4/3/2003 and no further revision was filed against the said order. After the death of the husband of the respondent No.1, respondent-tenants continued in the schedule premises for a period of five years, despite request having been made by the petitioner-landlady to vacate the premises and as such, it is the case of the petitioner that, on expiry of five years, respondent-tenants have no authority to continue in the premises as tenants and resultantly, the petitioner has filed petition under Sec. 5 and under Sec. 31 (1)(a) and (c) of the Act. It is further stated that, the petitioner is aged about 80 years and she is a widow and as such, she is entitled for immediate possession of the schedule premises. The petitioner has caused notice to the respondent-tenant for vacating the premises, however, landlady-petitioner has not received any reply from the respondent-tenants and accordingly landlady-petitioner filed petition in RCA No.3/2006. On service of notice, the respondents entered appearance, however, respondent Nos.3 and 4 filed detailed objection, admitting the relationship of landlord and tenant, and took up a contention that in view of the dismissal of the earlier petition in HRC No.131/1996, and same having reached finality, the petitioner-landlady cannot maintain second petition on the very same ground and as such, sought for dismissal of the petition. Based on the pleadings on record, the Rent Court formulated the points for consideration. In order to prove their case, the petitioner was examined as P.W.1 and produced 07 documents and same were marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.7. On the other hand, respondents have examined 01 witness as R.W.1 and produced 01 document as Ex.R.1. The Rent Court, after considering the material on record, by its order dtd. 11/1/2007, dismissed the petition. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner-landlady has filed Rent Revision No.13/2007 on the file of the First Revisional Court and same was resisted by the respondents-tenants. The First Revisional Court, after considering the material on record, by its order dtd. 6/6/2009 allowed the petition under Sec. 31(1)(a) and (c) of the Act, however, set aside the Revision on other grounds raised by the petitioner and as such, directed the respondent Nos.1 to 5 to vacate the petition premises within six months. Being aggrieved by the same, the respondent- tenants have preferred this revision petition.