USHA AND ORS. Vs. KRISHNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners who claim to be the landlords filed the above revision petition against the order dated 23.08.2012 made in rent revision No. 22/2010 on the file of I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad.

(2.) THE original petitioner Sri.Raghunath @ Bishanu filed HRC No. 100/1999 before the Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC., Hubli under the provisions of 21(1)(a)(h)(b)(c) r/w. (d) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act (for short 'the Act') r/w. Sections 27(2)(a)(c)(e)(h)(i)(o) and (r) of the Act contending that the respondent is a monthly tenant under the petitioner of the two petition schedule premises paying a monthly rent of Rs. 45/ - and Rs. 125/ - p.m. described in the hand sketch and further contended that the petitioner is too aged to look after himself and his sons are the only earning members on whom he is dependent and therefore, he contended that the petition premises is required to the petitioner and his family for their a bonafide use and occupation. The petitioner contended that the respondent/tenant is acting with a mala fide intention and denying the petitioner's claim of bona fide requirement of schedule premises, etc.

(3.) AFTER considering the oral and documentary evidence, the HRC Court by its order dated 17.09.2010 allowed the petition filed under Section 27(2)(c) and 27(2)(e) & (i), 27(2)(h), 27(2)(r) & Section 31 of the Act with cost and dismissed the petition filed under Section 27(2)(a) and 28(2)(o) of the Act and directed the present respondent to vacate the petition premises within two months from the date of the order.