ANIL ROY Vs. SHANTESH GUREDDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision by the tenant is directed against the order dated 7th october, 2003 passed by the II Additional Small Causes Judge, bangalore in H. R. C. No. 75 of 2001. The Court below allowed the petition filed by the landlord under Section 27 (2) (r) of the Karnataka rent Act, 1999 ('the Rent Act' for short) and ordered eviction of the tenant from the petition premises. The petition under Section 27 (2) (a) of the Rent Act has been dismissed. No revision is preferred by the landlord against the said dismissal.

(2.) FOR the sake of convenience advertance to the parties is made, in the course of this order, with reference to their rank in the Court below.

(3.) THE petition premises belonged to one Dr. C. V. P. Verma from whom the petitioner purchased the property. After purchase the petitioner filed the petition in the Court below contending that he is a residing in a tenanted premises and he requires the petition premises for his own self-occupation. He further averred in the petition that his landlord filed O. S. No. 261 of 1998 for evicting him and has succeeded in obtaining an order of eviction. The appeal in R. F. A. No. 618 of 1999 preferred by him against the order of eviction also having been dismissed, he is facing marching orders from the Court in Execution case No. 1054 of 2000. The respondent defended the petition on several grounds. He disputed the relationship of landlord and tenant, denied that the petition premises are required by the petitioner for his own use and occupation and claimed that the acquisition by the petitioner did not bestow any title on him because the sale transaction is sham and nominal and was one made for the purpose of ejecting him from the petition premises. The Court below rejected all these contentions of the respondent and passed the impugned order of eviction. Being aggrieved, the tenant is before me in this revision.