SRINIVASIAH Vs. THAYAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is against the order of the learned First Additional District Judge Bangalore, in H. R. C. Appeal No. 90 of 1953, setting aside the order of the Additional Munsiff and House Rent Controller, Corporation Area, Bangalore, in H. R. C. Petition No. 224/ ACC(B)/1953 that the petitioner should be put in possession of the premises of which he was formerly a tenant, but had to vacate as the respondent-landlady had to effect some repairs. THIS High Court in its order dated 1-9-1952 in H R. C. Revision Petition No. 647/51-52 directed that the present petitioner should vacate the premises by 1-11-52 and-that he should be put back in possession of the property within two months from that date. It has to be noticed that the petitioner did not vacate the building on 1-11-52, but had to be expelled later on by a coercive process. As such, as contended by the learned Advocate for the respondent, he is not entitled to apply for being put in possession of the property. It Will be noticed that, according to Section 8 Clause 5(b), Mysore House Rent Accommodation Control Act, 1951,

(2.) THIS revision petition stands therefore dis missed. It will however be noticed that the points of law referred to above were not pressed and they have not been taken into consideration by the Courts below. Considering this circumstance the parties will bear their own costs throughout.