KHAJABI Vs. MURUJA SAHEB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Land-lords have in this revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, challenged the order made on 17.3.1982 by the Addl. District Judge, Bijapur dismissing H.R.C. (RP) No.20/1980 and affirming the order made on 12.3.1980 by the Principal Munsiff, Bijapur in H.R.C. No.69/1976.

(2.) Respondent is a tenant of a tin roofed 'padashala' with a kitchen measuring 22' x 22' on the western portion of CTS No.124/A in ward No.6. He was paying a rent of Rs.5/- per month and has been paying a rent of Rs.8/- per month since 1962. The first petitioner is the Land-lady and petitioners 2-4 also claim interest in this property under a Gift Deed said to have been executed in their favour by their mother first petitioner.

(3.) The respondent filed H.R.C. No.69/76 before the Munsiff, Bijapur under Section 44 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). His case is as follows: The varandha had a tin roof, but at the instance of the landlady, he remodelled the roofing spending about Rs.1500/-. The first respondent did not pay him this amount, but pursuant to an agreement between them, she permitted him to reside in the premises permanently paying a rent of Rs.8/- per month subject to the landlady paying taxes and attending to the repairs. According to him the landlady refused to receive the rent of Rs.8/- in the month of April 1974, and as she refused to receive rents even after a notice was got issued, he has been depositing rents in court. The other petitioners also started troubling him and have also filed criminal cases against him. The petitioners applied to the Municipality for permission to demolish and re-construct the building but the Municipality permitted them to effect only repairs within four days without evicting the tenants. The petitioners taking advantage of the permission given by the Municipality to effect "only repairs" pulled down the roof of the Kitchen on 8.1.1976, but have got carried out the repairs. The respondent got issued a notice to the petitioners calling upon them to effect the repairs and on their failing to do so, filed the application under Section 44 of the Act for a direction to the petitioners to effect the repairs to the premises or to permit him to effect the repairs at the cost of the petitioners.