LEELAMMA SAMUEL Vs. T M FRANCIS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision is directed against the order dated 6-7-1994, wherein objections raised by the tenant regarding admissibility of an instrument purported to be a lease transaction for a period of eleven months was overruled and the trial court permitted the landlord to produce and get the instrument marked as exhibit by way of legal evidence.

(2.) Few facts to briefly state are: The landlord in itiatedeviction proceedings under clause (h) of proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 against the tenant, the proceeding being numbered as HRC 10583 of 1993. Tenant contested the matter and denied the relationship of landlord and tenant as between the parties to the cause. During the pendency of the proceedings, landlord intended to place reliance on a deed of lease said to have been executed by the tenant Smt. Leelamma Samuel to prove jurisdictional issue namely existence of relationship of landlord and tenant in view of specific denial of relationship by the tenant. Admitted facts being Smt. Leelamma Samuel had entered into lease transaction dated 24-4-1993, wherein the rate of rent is stipulated at Rs. 750/- per month and the period of lease fixed is for a period of 11 months renewable at the option of the landlord on enhanced rent subject to separate conditions and terms. There is another clause in the deed of lease regarding receipt of security deposit of Rs. 7,500/-. The relevant clause in the deed of lease regarding security deposit is clause 14 of Part 1 reads:

(3.) In the affidavit annexed to I-A filed by the landlord under Section 29(4) of the Act, the landlord has stated as follows: