VEERASWAMY Vs. NIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An argument of 'abdication' strongly pressed, as such, upon me requires consideration and decision in this revision Petition.

(2.) The petitioner here is the landlord of certain premises. In the Court below, he filed an eviction petition seeking recovery of possession of that premises from Smt. Geetha Ramanujam, who was a tenant of that premises. The ground urged in support of the petition, was that of reasonable and bona fide requirement of that premises for his (landlord's) self occupation as permitted under clause (h) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 ("the Act"). He gave evidence as P.W. 1 and produced documents, Exhibits P-1 to P-3, to support the said ground, Thereafter, the eviction petition was adjourned by the Court below to a future date for pronouncing orders thereon on merits. But, before rendering of such orders, the respondent 11 tenant voluntarily delivered possession of the said premises to the petitioner-landlord, who acknowledged the same. This development made the Respondent tenant move the Court below with a memo, seeking dismissal of the eviction petition on the plea that it had become infructuous. The Court below accepting that memo, by its order dated 11-1-1985, dismissed the eviction petition treating it as having become infructuous. It is the validity of that order which has been questioned by the landlord (the petitioner here) in this revision petition.

(3.) In the cause title to the memorandum of revision petition presented in the office of this Court, in the place meant for respondent's name, it had been shown as 'nil'. The Office returned the revision petition raising a query as to how the revision petition with no respondent was maintainable. But, it was represented with an explanation which runs thus :