PRAVEEN KUMAR Vs. RAMESH CHAND BAMBOLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these revision petitions are filed by the petitioners under Section 46 (1)of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, challenging the order passed by the 9th and 19th Addl. Small Cause Judge, Bangalore, in hrc Nos. 3/2005 and 4/2005.

(2.) THE main grounds urged by the petitioners in hrrp. 492/2006 is that the finding recorded by the trial Court that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between them is totally incorrect and perverse. The respondent has admitted the tenancy under the deceased mother of the first petitioner. The court below has totally failed and ignored to consider the lease deed executed by late pistabai in favour of the respondent. The trial court has not provided sufficient opportunity for leading oral evidence in HRC. 4/2005 filed by this petitioner against the very same respondent in respect of another land. There also the respondent had raised similar contentions disputing the relationship of landlord and tenant. But the Court below held that there is a relationship of landlord and tenant and that itself is sufficient to hold that there is a relationship of landlord and tenant. Therefore, the finding recorded in HRC. 3/2005 that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and respondent is liable to be set aside by allowing the revision petition.

(3.) THE grounds urged in HRRP. 504/2006 is that the petitioner No. 1 is none other than the son of the 2nd petitioner born through late pistabai who has executed the lease deed in favour of the respondent in respect of the residential premises. The earlier eviction petitions filed by late Pistabai came to be dismissed for non-prosecution. During her lifetime, she has executed a Will in favour of her husband/2nd petitioner and after her death, second petitioner has been brought on record as her legal the petitioners' heir in HRC. Nos. 49/97 and 50/97. The said petitions were dismissed for default. The 2nd petitioner gifted the petition schedule properties to his son 1st petitioner. The respondent is a chronic defaulter in payment of rent and the respondent is in arrears of rent from 1-7-1996. The schedule premises is required for the petitioners' own use and therefore, they filed the eviction petitions hrc. 3 and 4 of 2005 and that they are entitled to recover the arrears of rent from the respondent and the lease deed has been produced by the petitioner in both the cases and the trial Court has failed to take into account the same and has wrongly come to the conclusion and passed the order in HRC. 4/2005 holding that the 1st petitioner is entitled to get the rent of Rs. 250/- only from December, 2000 till today even though the eviction petition has been filed for recovery of arrears of rent on 1-7-1996. Hence, these revision petitions.