KRISHNAMURTHY Vs. VIMALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is filed by the tenant challenging the eviction order dated 30 -3 -2015 passed in HRC No. 91 of 2014. Respondent herein instituted the eviction proceedings under Section 27(2)(i) and 27(2)(r) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, seeking eviction of the petitioner from the petition schedule premises. It was contended by the landlady that she had purchased the schedule property from the legal heirs of one Doraiswamy Mudaliar and his son Padmanabha Mudaliar vide sale deed dated 12 -12 -2006 for valuable consideration of Rs. 24,25,000/ -, and thereafter, the tenancy was attorned and the respondent paid rent for sometime to the petitioner but later he became defaulter. It was also contended by the landlady that the respondent had filed a suit in O.S. No. 7364 of 2010 seeking the relief of declaration that he had become owner by adverse possession in respect of the petition schedule property and the said suit was dismissed by the judgment and decree dated 23 -1 -2014. Thereafter, the landlady issued a notice followed by institution of the suit seeking eviction.

(2.) THE tenant resisted the petition contending that there was no jural relationship between the parties. It was urged that father of the revision petitioner was inducted as tenant of the schedule premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 16/ - during the year 1958 by Doraiswamy Mudaliar. Upon his death in the year 1966, he has continued in the premises. He has denied the title and ownership of the respondent herein over the suit premises. Therefore, he sought for dismissal of the petition stating that it was totally misconceived.

(3.) ON consideration of evidence on record, the Court below has come to the conclusion that in the wake of Ex. P. 10 - judgment rendered by the Civil Court in O.S. No. 7364 of 2010, it was not open for the tenant to contend that the respondent herein was not the owner of the property. It is also further held that the landlady proved existence of jural relationship of landlady and tenant and that the petition premises was required for her use and occupation. It has thus ordered eviction of the tenant from the premises by allowing the petition filed under Section 27(2)(i) and 27(2)(r) of the Act by granting four months time to vacate the premises.