DAVID PAUL Vs. KARUNAKAR M SHETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE correctness and the legality of the order passed by the court-below dismissing IA No. 9 filed by the petitioner for stopping of all further proceedings in HRC 1068/2000 is being challenged in this revision by the petitioner-tenant.

(2.) THE respondents herein filed HRC 1068/2000 against the petitioner-tenant in the II Addl Small Causes Judge, Bangalore under Sec 21 (1) (a) and (h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the repealed Act) seeking an order of eviction against the petitioner. The petitioner filed his statement of objections denying the relationship of landlord and tenant between him and the respondents. It was stated by him in the statement of objections that he was a tenant under one Mirza Askar Ali and after his death as many persons claimed to be his legal representatives he was constrained to file HRC 1471/98 and deposited rents in those proceedings The present eviction proceedings is filed by the respondents claiming to be the owners of the petition premises having purchased the same from the legal representatives of the deceased Mirza Asker Ali The petitioner relies heavily upon the order passed in HRC 1471/98 whereunder the court passed the final order directing the petitioner to deposit the rents payable by him with regard to the schedule premises till the title of the respondents to the property is adjudicated upon in accordance with law The petitioner filed I A No 9 in the court-below in H R C 1068/2000 stating that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between himself and the respondents because there is no declaration from any competent court to the effect that the vendors of the respondents are the legal representatives of the deceased Mirza Asker Ali and, therefore, so long such a declaration is not forthcoming the sale by the vendors of the present respondents would not bestow on the respondents any right title or interest and hence the eviction proceedings filed by the respondents cannot be adjudicated upon in a HRC proceedings as the very existence of relationship of landlord and tenant is absent. The court-below dismissed the said I A No 9 as an attempt made by the petitioner to protract the proceedings.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel Mr K. K Vasanth for the petitioner and learned Counsel Mr Udaya Holla for the respondents.