SIDDAPPA ADIVEPPA ROKHADI Vs. VENKATESH RAGHAVENDRA HUBBALLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is before us consequent on a reference made to this Bench under S. 8 of the Mysore High Court Act.

(2.) THE petitioner is the tenant who was sued by the landlord who is the respondent for possession and rent, which, according to the landlord had fallen due for a period of three years. There were many contentions urged by the tenant. There was a decree for eviction made by the Civil Judge which was confirmed by the lower appellate Court. But the decree for rent was for and Anr. smaller sum of money than that claimed by the landlord. Whereas the landlord claimed a sum of Rs. 207 -50 nP. the decree was for Rs. 98 -42 nP.

(3.) THE argument advanced in this revision petition by Mr. Kothawale is that since the tenancy between the parties was admittedly a contractual tenancy, a notice determining the tenancy issued under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act should have been issued by the landlord, and that not having been done, the suit brought by the landlord was unsustainable and the tenant could not be evicted.