MOHANLAL JINDAL Vs. B P PADMARAJAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE petitions are filed by both the tenant and the landlords. The tenant is aggrieved by the eviction order passed against him under Section 21 (1) (h)and the landlords are aggrieved by the order of rejection of the petition under section 21 (1 ) (a) and (t) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, and sought for setting aside the order passed by the Additional Small Causes Judge, bangalore, dated 14-1-1999 in H. R. C. No. 1114 of 1996.

(2.) FOR the sake of convenience the rank of the parties is referred to as tenant and landlords.

(3.) (a) The brief facts of the case are that the eviction petition was filed by the landlords against the tenant under Section 21 (l) (a), (f), (h) and (p) of the karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (now repealed) (in short referred to as the 'act'), seeking eviction. The case of the landlords is that the shop premises in question was leased in favour of the tenant for the purpose of carrying on business in bangles. It is alleged that he had stopped the business and left to firezabad in Uttar Pradesh, but has subleased the said premises to one Sri ramkumar who is in occupation of the premises and that the landlords are receiving monetary consideration from him. Therefore, it is alleged that the tenant has unauthorisedly sublet the schedule premises to Mr. Ramkumar without the consent or knowledge of the landlords. Hence, they have sought for eviction of the tenant on that ground under Section 21 (1 ) (f) of the Act.