SYED HUMAYUN Vs. S.G. JAYAGOPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed challenging the order passed by the Trial Court in H.R.C.No.16/2008 dtd. 1/10/2013 allowing the petition filed under Sec. 27(2), (a) and (r) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 directing the petitioner herein to quit and vacate the premises within one month from the date of the order and also directed to pay Rs.41,000.00 computing the rent at the rate of Rs.1,000.00 per month from 17/7/2007 to 17/11/2007 and the rents accrued thereafter within one month from the date of the order. The revision petitioner has also challenged the order of dismissal passed by the Rent Revision Court in R.R.No.69/2013 dtd. 30/9/2015 confirming the order of the Trial Court granting 90 days time to vacate the premises from the date of the said order.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case of the respondent- landlord before the Trial Court is that he had purchased the petition schedule premises from previous owner Smt. Rani Balu G. At the time of purchase, the respondent therein was residing in the petition schedule premises as tenant. After purchase, the vendor of the petitioner issued the letter of attornement dtd. 9/12/2004 and since then, the respondent is continuing as a tenant of the schedule premises under the petitioner. The tenancy is oral tenancy and the rate of rent is Rs.1,000.00 per month. The petitioner issued the legal notice dtd. 23/11/2007 calling upon the respondent to pay the arrears of rent, the respondent not paid the rents. The petitioner is a retired railway employee and he required the schedule premises for his bonafide use and occupation. The petitioner wants to accommodate his son, who is married and unemployed.

(3.) In pursuance of the petition, the respondent appeared before the Court and filed the written statement denying all the averments made in the eviction petition and contend that, Smt. Rani Balu G. borrowed a sum of Rs.1,40,000.00 by agreeing to mortgage the schedule premises to the respondent and put the respondent in possession of the schedule premises and she also executed the mortgage agreement dtd. 22/3/2003 in favour of the respondent. Subsequent to that, Smt. Rani Balu G., by agreeing to sell the schedule premises for Rs.5,60,000.00, received Rs.2,75,000.00 as part consideration. In this regard, public notice is also issued and the petitioner knowing all these aspects, filed this petition. It is also contended that the respondent filed the suit in O.S.No.174/2008 for specific performance of the contract.