K ABDUL SUBHAN Vs. A K SATYANARAYANA SETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition, filed under Section 50 (1) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, (hereinafter re ferred to as the 'Karnataka Act'), has come up for disposal, before this Court, in view of the order of reference made by the learned Single Judge of this Court, on 18th November 1982. The order of reference states that the question for consideration is whether the legal representatives of the deceased tenant, in the case of a non-residential premises, have a right to prosecute the proceeding ? Further since other cases involving the same question had been already referred to the Division Bench, reference in this case became necessary.

(2.) The schedule premises is a nonresidential one. One K. Abdul Subhan was running his business in glass ware. The owner of the property appears to have bequeathed the property in favour of one Muddaveerappa, whose younger brother is one Chikkavee, appa. As Muddaveerappa is an insane person, Chikkaveerappa acted as his guardian. Chikkaveerappa sold this property to the respondent A. K. Sathyanarayana Setty, after obtaining premission of the District Judge, Bangalore, in Miscellaneous Case No. 33 of 1971, in view of the provisions of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act. Respondent filed Original Suit Number 2387 of 1974 against Sri Subhan for recovery of rent. That was decreed on 27-11-1977. Regular Appeal Number 16 of 1978 was filed by Sri Subhan as against the said decree. That was disposed of on 5-12-1980, as per the certified copy of the judgement produced by Sri S. P. Shankar, learned counsel for the petitioners, for our perusal. One of the contentions raised by Sri Subhan was that Chikkaveerappa had no right to alienate the property and therefore the respondent had not become the owner of the property, and as such there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between them. The trial court raised the following two issues "1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is entitled to recover the suit amount from defendant as arrears of rent as prayed for ? 2. Do the defendants prove that they ace not tenants of the suit property under the plaintiff?" Issue Number 1 was held in the affirmative and issue No. was held in the negative. In Regular Appeal Number 16 of 1978, the appellate court framed the fallowing point also for consideration.

(3.) Abdul Subhan, the. respondent in the said petition, filed his statement of objections putting forth the very contentions, he had put-forth in Original Suit Number 2387 of 1974. He also contended that Chikkaveerappa had earlier filed an eviction petition against him and had failed and therefore the respondent had been set up and further that the respondent did not reasonably and bonafide require the 'Schedule premises for the purpose of immediate demolition and reconstruction; and also for his occupation of the reconstructed premises. Abdul Subh'an expired on 18-2-1976. That is during the pendency of the petition, in the trial court. Respondent-landlord filed I. A. No. 3 dated 27-2-1976, supported by his affidavit, praying that the present petitioners be brought on record, as the legal representatives of the deceased Abdul Subhan. It is evident that this application has been filed by virtue of the provisions in Section 51 (1) of the Karnataka Act. The petitioners were brought on record. They filed objections to I. A. No. 3 They also filed their addi'ionaf Objections. 'The sum and substance of their objection is only reiteration of what Abdul Subhan had putforth. It is, in our opinion, necessary to note at this stage that, in the affidavit, filed by the respondent, in support of I.A. No. 3, he has clearly stated 'that there was devolution of estate in favour of the legal representatives of the deceased Abdul Subhan. We may observe, at this stage it self, that we are not binding down the respondent to this staternent if such a statement is not in fact, acceptable in law.