HOME SCHOOL Vs. MUNEERA BASHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) this revision application has been preferred by the tenants who have suffered an order of eviction under clause (h) of Section 21(1) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 ('the act', for short) which pertains to the personal necessity of the landlady.

(2.) admittedly the schedule building had been leased out to the present tenants by Sri A.H. Sufi pw-3 under a registered lease deed dated 19-7-1973 (exhibit p-16) on a monthly rental of Rs. 550/- for a term of five years. Pursuant to the order of compromise passed by this court in rsa No. 600 of 1966, Sri Sufi made an oral gift dated 31-10-1974 in respect of the schedule building to his sister Smt. Muneera begum who has filed the present eviction petition as the landlady. The said gift was confirmed by Sri Sufi by making a written declaration dated 1-11-1974 (exhibit p-1), and the same was accepted by the landlady by another written declaration of the same date being exhibit p-2. Pursuant to this gift, Bangalore corporation transferred the khatha in the name of donee as is evident from the endorsement dated 4-12-1974 (exhibit p-3). It appears, despite the gift so made, for certain reasons till 1983 the rent was being collected by the said Sri Sufi on behalf of his sister, and since 1983 the tenants started paying rents directly to the present landlady as is evident from the deposition of pw-1 landlady and the letter and its postal certificate of tenant rw-3 marked as exhibit p-14 and p-15, and from the evidence of rw-1 tenant. The tenant rw-1 in paragraph 3 of her examination in chief has clearly admitted thus: "3. I know the petitioner. I used to send the rent to Mr. Soofi and he in turn used to pay it to the petitioner. Later Mr. Soofi brought the petitioner, introduced her to me and directed me to pay the rents to her. Since then I have been paying rents to the petitioner".

(3.) from the said oral and documentary evidence it could not have been disputed that the present landlady is the owner of the schedule property and the tenants knowing the said fact had been remitting the rents to her. Still the tenants apart from disputing the relationship contested the eviction petition on merits disputing the plea of personal necessity. Accordingly, the court below formulated the following points for determination: "1. Whether the petitioner proves that she is the owner ' and landlady of the petition premises and that the respondents are tenants under her in the. Premises and there exists a relationship of landlord and tenant between them? 2. Whether the petitioner proves that she reasonably and bona fide requires the petition premises for her own use and occupation? 3. Whether comparative hardship will be more on the petitioner if an order of eviction is refused in her favour, or whether it will be more on the respondents if ordered to be evicted?" the court below on considering the oral and documentary evidence answered the first three points in affirmative and in favour of the landlady, and accordingly passed an order of eviction.