K SUNDARSHETTY Vs. MARY VICTORIA PINTO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is admitted to consider the following substantial questions of law

(2.) As the respondents have entered caveatand are represented by Sri B. V. Acharya and further as Sri B. V. Acharya requested that the appeal may be remanded to the trial Court in view of the simple fact that the evidence of D.W. 3 has not been considered bearing in mind the principle contained in item No. 1 of Schedule II of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the appeal is heard on merits.

(3.) This is defendant's appeal. The respondents-plaintiffs filed the suit for possession of the suit schedule property and for recovery of arrears of rent. The trial Court decreed the suit and the lower appellate Court dismissed the appeal.