T I MUDDUKRISHNA Vs. RUDRANAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) heard both counsel. Admitted.

(2.) these four revision petitions arise out of the common order passed on 30-5-1995 in h.r.c. No. 2562 of 1991 on the file of the xii additional small causes judge, Bangalore, dismissing la. 5 under order 1, Rule 10, C.P.C. filed by the muzrai department (government) and another application filed under order 1, Rule 10, C.P.C. by one muddukrishna.

(3.) the facts necessary are: the landlady rudranamma filed two eviction petitions one eviction petition h.r.c. No. 2561 of 1991 filed against the alleged tenant venkatesh and another eviction petition h.r.c. No. 2562 of 1991 against two alleged tenants kodandapani and byla hanumaiah. H.r.c. No. 2561 of 1991 has been filed on the ground under Section 21(l)(a) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act and h.r.c. No. 2562 of 1991 has been filed on the ground under Section 21(1)(a) and (f) (arrears of rent and sub-letting) of the Karnataka rent control, act. It is not disputed that in both cases, the alleged tenants have denied the right of the alleged landlady to claim arrears of rent. They have denied that rudranamma is the landlady. In both these eviction petitions separate applications under order 1, Rule 10, C.P.C. have been filed by one muddukrishna and also by muzrai department (government). Muddukrishna has prayed in la. 4 that he should be impleaded as a party to the eviction proceedings since he is a tenant under the muzrai department. The muzrai department (government) has also filed la. 5 under order 1, Rule 10, C.P.C. praying that it should be permitted to come on record as respondent since the alleged landlady rudranamma is claiming title in the petition schedule property falsely. The learned hrc judge rejected both the applications la. 4 and la. 5. These orders have been challenged by the said muddukrishna and the muzrai department (government) in these revision petitions.