M T NARAYANAGOWDA Vs. MACHAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WRIT petition by a person who has suffered an eviction order dated 15-2-2000 passed under proviso (j) to sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 ('the 1961 Act' for short), that the landlord wanted the premises for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction questioning the legality of this order on the premise that the order is one without jurisdiction, that which could not have been passed under the provisions of the Act; that the provisions of the Act were never attracted to the situation and as such the order deserves to be quashed

(2.) THE brief facts leading to the above petition are that the respondent claiming to be the owner of the schedule premises instituted an eviction petition in H. R. C. No. 1 of 1994 on the file of the Munsiff at channapatna under proviso (j) to sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Act on the premise that the premises is reasonably and bona fide required by the landlord for the immediate purpose of demolishing and such demolition is to be made for the purpose of erecting a new building. The petitioner was the respondent in the eviction proceedings.

(3.) THE petitioner filed his objections pleading that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant as between the eviction petitioner and the answering respondent; that the respondent in the HRC case was in possession of the premises in his capacity as an agreement holder with the erstwhile owner one Iramma. Though he was earlier a tenant under the said person, the relationship had ceased on and after entering the agreement dated 23-9-1983 for the sale of the premises for a consideration whereupon the answering respondent was put in possession of the premises in part performance of the agreement and the respondent had paid the full sale consideration of Rs. 15,000/- under the agreement. As the relationship of landlord and tenant itself ceases on or after 23-9-1983 any purchasers, assuming that they are so, from the said erstwhile owner subsequent to this agreement cannot, at any rate, claim the status of a landlord vis-a-vis the respondent and as such prayed for dismissal of the eviction petition.