KIRAN BAI Vs. K V JAYACHANDRA SETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision Petition filed by L. Rs. , of late Mittal Lal (tenant) under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the order dated 29- 1 -2005 made in RR No. 5/2004 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Mysore, confirming the order made on I. A-10 filed under section 5 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 (in short, 'the New Rent Act') by the Land lords in hrc No. 436/1989, on the file of 3rd Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Mysore.

(2.) THE Petitioners (Lrs. of the tenant) are represented by Sri T. N. Raghupathy. The Respondent nos. 1 to 3/landlords are represented by Sri K. M. Prakash.

(3.) THE brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the Revision Petition may be stated as under: on 22-11 -1989, the land lords filed eviction petition against the tenant/mittal Lal under Section 21 (1) (h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (in short, 'the Old Rent Act') in respect of a shop premises bearing No. 1037,1012/b (New No. 77/b) in K. R. Hospital Road, Mysore, measuring 8' x 12' against the original tenant/mittal Lal, who was in possession of the shop premises, on a monthly rent of Rs. 330/ -. The tenant denied the grounds of eviction. During the pendency of the eviction petition, the original tenant died. Therefore, L. Rs. of the tenant were brought on record and they filed additional statement of objections adopting the original statement of objections filed by the original tenant. In support of the case of the land lord/ petitioner No. 2, has got himself as P. W.-1 and got marked Exs. P 1 to P16. In rebuttal, the younger brother of the tenant, as Power of Attorney Holder of the L. Rs. got himself examined as r. W.-1. The Trial Court, after hearing arguments, allowed the eviction petition under Section 21 (1) (h) of the Old Rent Act by order dated 16-9-1995 and directed the L. Rs of the tenant to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the petition schedule premises to the land lords. Feeling aggrieved of the order of the Trial Court, they preferred a Revision Petition in No. 230/1995 on the file of District Judge at Mysore. On 28-1-1998 the Revision Petition was allowed and the order of eviction was set aside. Feeling aggrieved of the order made by the District Judge, the land lords preferred a Revision Petition in No. 657/1998 before this Court. The Revision Petition was allowed by this Court and the matter was remitted back to the District Court to re-consider the case on merits after affording opportunity to the parties. Accordingly, the Learned District judge, Mysore, on 2-3-2001, restored the file, in R. R. No. 230/1995. After the matter was remitted back to the District Court, Mysore, Petitioner No. 2/land lord died and therefore his l. Rs. , were brought on record. The L. R. of Petitioner No. 2/land lord filed I. A-2 under Order VI rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, contending that the schedule premises is required for business. The amendment application was heard along with the Revision Petition by the Learned district Judge, Mysore, and by an order dated 15-11 -2001, allowed the amendment application as well as the Revision Petition, and remitted the case back to the Trial Court, with a direction to afford opportunity to the parties in the light of the amendment sought for, and dispose of the same in accordance with law. The Petitioner No. 2 (a)/land lord got herself examined as P. W.-2 and got marked Exs. P17 to P25. On 16-9-2003, the Petitioner No. 2 (a)/land lord filed I. A-X before the Trial Court under Section 5 of the New Rent Act read with Section 151 of the CPC seeking direction to stop all further proceedings and to direct the L. Rs. , of the original tenant to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the schedule premises. The said application was opposed by the tenants and contended that there was no jural relationship of land lord and tenant between the Petitioners and the Respondents. After hearing arguments, the Court below allowed i. A-X directing the L. Rs. , of tenant to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the petition schedule premises to the land lord. Feeling aggrieved of the order of the Trial Court on I. A-X, the L. Rs. , of the tenant filed Revision Petition under Section 46 of the New Rent Act, which came to be registered in R. R. No. 5/2004 on the file of District Court, Mysore. The Learned district Judge formulated two points viz. , point No. 1 on the point of jural relationship between the parties, point No. 2 on the point whether the tenancy is extinguished on the death of original tenant on 10-3-1991 and answered both the points in the affirmative and answered point No. 3 in the negative holding that the impugned order of the Trial Court was sustainable. Therefore, dismissed the Revision Petition confirming the order dated 12-12-2003 made on I. A-X in HRC no. 436/1989 on the file of in Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mysore. This is impugned in this Revision Petition.