(1.) THIS petition is filed by the petitioner - tenant challenging the order dated 4.2.2015 passed in HRC RP No. 14/2014 confirming the order dated 26.7.2014 passed on I.A. No. III in HRC No. 31/2012 rejecting the application filed under Section 43 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the respondent - Smt. Jijabai alleged landlord filed HRC No. 31/2012 under the provisions of Section 27(a) and (r) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, for eviction against the petitioner urging that the petition premises is all piece and parcel of the building in R.S. No. 79/A + A (Part of Old R.S. No. 79/1B) situated at Vth Cross, Manchalay Nivas, Adarsh Nagar, Angol, Belgaum, originally belongs to one Shri Subhash Shankar Jadhav and he had appointed his brother Srikant Shankar Jadhav as his GPA Holder to deal and maintain the said premises. The said GPA Holder has sold the entire property in favour of the respondent under registered sale deed dated 7.7.2011, thereby being the owner of the property in question, she also stated that the present petitioner was inducted as tenant in respect of the premises by erstwhile owner through GPA holder Snkant Shankar Jadhav on monthly rental of Rs. 2,000/ - and her ownership and tenancy of the petitioner was misused and the petitioner has admitted the jural relationship of the landlord and tenant in respect of the petition premises etc., therefore, sought for eviction. The petitioner who is the respondent in HRC No. 31/2012 filed statement of objections and denied the entire petition averments and also denied the very jural relationship between the landlord and tenant, which was said to have been in existence between the petitioner and respondent and the respondent -tenant also stated that Subhash Shankar Jadhav, was power of attorney holder and used to pay rents to the GPA holder and therefore sought for dismissal of the petition.
(3.) AFTER considering the entire material on record the learned Principal Civil Judge, JMFC dismissed the said I.A. holding that without having trial, the Court is not supposed to give its opinion regarding the relationship between the parties. Accordingly rejected I.A. III. The said order was questioned before the Presiding Officer,. FTC III at Belagavi, in HRC RP 14/2014, who after hearing both the parties has rejected the petition confirming the order passed by the learned Principal Civil Judge and JMFC at Belgaum, against the concurrent finding of fact, the present HRRP is filed.