G RAMACHANDRAN Vs. V DORAISWAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these revisions preferred by the tenants, the legality and correctness of the order of the court-below passed in H. R. C. Nos. 10700/91 and H. R. C. No 10701/91 are called in question. By the common order passed in them, the Court-below allowed the eviction petitions filed under section 21 (1) (h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 ('the repealed Act' for short) and rejected the petitions filed under Section 21 (1) (a) (c) (d) of the repealed Act. No revision is preferred against the dismissal of the eviction petitions filed on grounds other than Clause (h) by the alleged legal representatives of the deceased landlord. I use the term 'alleged' because the petitioners very hotly dispute the claim of the present respondent in these revision petitions that she is the true legal representative of the deceased landlord.

(2.) BUT before I proceed to decide the revision petitions on merits, I must dispose of plethora of ias filed by the parties during the pendency of these revision petitions.

(3.) THE petition was originally filed by V. Doraiswamy who was the landlord of the petition premises. After his death during the pendency of the proceedings before the H RC Court his daughter Smt Meera Mukund has come on record as his legal representative. Learned Counsel for the petitioner-tenant challenges the order of the Court-below mainly on three grounds viz, 1)there is no relationship of landlord and tenant as between the parties, 2) the need of the respondent is fully met as she has come to possess two other portions of the petition premises which were in the occupation of other two tenants and 3) the right to sue does not enure to the benefit of the present respondent as the requirement pleaded by late V Doraiswamy was not for the benefit of the present respondent and, therefore, a fresh petition has to be filed in that regard.