MANSOOR EQBAL Vs. MOHAMMED BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

(2.) This revision petition is filed under Sec. 115 of C.P.C. praying this Court to set aside the judgment dtd. 29/9/2021 passed in R.R.No.2/2021 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru which was filed challenging the order dtd. 18/2/2021 passed on I.A.No.II in H.R.C.No.53/2014 on the file of the IV Additional Civil Judge, Mysuru and allow this revision petition as prayed for and grant such other and further relief as the Court deems fit.

(3.) The factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner herein has filed the eviction petition against the respondents seeking for an order of eviction under Sec. 27(2)(a)(o) and (r) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 seeking for an order to direct the respondents to vacate and handover vacant possession of the petition schedule premises. It is contended that the petitioner is an absolute owner of the property for having purchased the same on 17/11/2011. It is contended that, at the time of purchasing the property, the respondents were in occupation of the schedule property, except a room measuring 10 x 10 ft. as tenants under the vendor of the petitioner. On earlier occasion, the husband of the respondent No.1 was tenant in occupation of the said property as admitted by him in the suit filed by him against the vendor of the petitioner in O.S.No.201/2005. In the said suit, he contended that he was a tenant on monthly rent of Rs.75.00 and there was an agreement of sale entered by the vendor of the petitioner in favour of him on 8/1/1993 and on the strength of the said agreement, he filed suit in O.S.No.201/2005 for the relief of specific performance of alleged agreement, which was dismissed on 13/3/2008. After dismissal of the said suit, the schedule property was conveyed to the petitioner by the vendor of the petitioner and all the revenue records were transferred to the name of the petitioner. Hence, the respondents became the tenants under the petitioner on a monthly rent of Rs.75.00. Even though the room measuring 10 x 10 ft. was not the subject matter of the lease, the respondents have trespassed into the said property and occupied the same. In this regard, criminal case is registered against the respondents and the respondents are very irregular in payment of rent and they have not paid the rent right from the date of purchase of the schedule property by the petitioner. The petitioner also pleaded that he has no house of his own for his residence and the same is required.