SAROJAMMA Vs. K M VENKATESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition by the defendant/tenant in the suit in S. C. No. 161/2003 is directed against the judgment and decree dtd. 30. 10. 2003 passed by the Court of Small Causes, Bangalore directing the petitioner to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the suit premises to the respondent/landlord within three months.

(2.) I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties, perused the impugned judgment and the record of the Trial Court.

(3.) THE relevant facts leading to filing of this Revision Petition are as follows; the respondent/plaintiff had leased the suit premises to the petitioner/defendant on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,600/- for a period of two years and one month as per Ex. P1-the lease deed dated 10. 3. 1997. Accordingly, the lease got determined by efflux of time on 10. 4. 99. A notice of termination of lease dated 12. 8. 99 was also issued as per Ex. P2. Thereafter, the respondent/plaintiff filed a suit in O. S. No. 9263/99 before the City Civil Court, Bangalore for possession of the suit property and for damages. The City Civil Court, in view of the judgment of this Court in RAMESH P. SETH v. KRISHNAMURTHY, ILR 2002 KAR 565 ordered for return of the plaint by its order dated 9. 1. 2003 for presentation to the Court of Small Causes, bangalore. On such presentation of the plaint to the Court of Small Causes, the suit came to be renumbered as S. C. No. 161/2003. The petitioner/defendant resisted the suit interalia on the ground that the suit was not maintainable in view of the provisions of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999. The plaintiff got examined himself as PW1 and produced Exs. P1. to P8. The defendant examined her husband/gpa Holder as DW1. The trial Court formulated the following points for determination: