LAWS(KAR)-1995-11-23

JAMALKHAN Vs. MUJAHID AHAMED

Decided On November 29, 1995
JAMAL KHAN Appellant
V/S
MUJAHID AHAMED Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) these two revision petitions arise out of an order in h.r.c. No. 3359 of 1984 on the file of the 9th additional small causes court, Bangalore, dismissing the said petition by an order dated 19-1-1990. The said petition had been filed by the petitioner-landlord in c.r.p. No. 1473 of 1990 against the respondent-tenant under Section 21(1)(d) and (h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafterwards referred to as 'the act') praying for eviction of the respondent from the petition schedule property, namely a shop bearing No. 15 situated in o.k. road, basavaraja market, Bangalore. Being aggrieved by the dismissal order in the said eviction petition, the landlord has preferred the revision petition in c.r.p. No. 1473 of 1990. During the pendency of the eviction petition, the petitioner-landlord filed an application, la. Vi under Section 29(1) and (4) of the act praying for a direction to the respondent- tenant to pay the arrears of rent due and on his failure to do so, for a direction to stop the proceedings and direct the eviction of the respondent. Since there was dispute with regard to the quantum of rent, the trial court held an enquiry and by an order dated 12-2-1987, determined the quantum of rent at Rs. 250/- per month as against the claim of the tenant that the rent was Rs. 100/- per month and directed the tenant to deposit the arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 250/- per month. Being aggrieved by that Order, the tenant has preferred the revision petition in c.r.p. No. 2419 of 1987.

(2.) the facts which have led to these revision petitions may briefly be stated as follows. For the purpose of convenience, i will refer to the parties to these revision petitions by the positions they have occupied in the trial court.

(3.) the case of the petitioner has been summarised by the learned trial judge in the impugned order at paras 2 to 4. They read as follows: