B VASANTHY URS Vs. SHAHTAJKHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard both the counsel on record.

(2.) The short question that arises for consideration is whether the application filed by the landlord under Section 29 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act in Miscellaneous Proceedings No. 69/93 initiated by the tenant in respect of an ex parte order passed in HRC 967 of 1992 is maintainable or not.

(3.) Few facts briefly stated are as follows: The land lordinitiated eviction proceedings under clauses (a), (b) and (c) and (h) of proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act. The proceedings being numbered as 967 of 1992. The trial court on 2-2-1993 allowed the relief sought for by the landlord. The tenant inspite of service of notice remained absent and as such the order that has been passed by the trial court in HRC 967 of 1992 has to be construed as an ex parte order of eviction.