RUTHA BAI Vs. BALDEV SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is filed by the petitioner-landlady under Section 46 (1) of the Karnataka Rent Act 1999 challenging the order dated 5. 10. 2005 passed by the XV Addl. Small Causes judge, Mayo Hall Unit, Bangalore (SCCH No. 19) in HRC NO. 10132/2004 dismissing the eviction petition filed by the revision petitioner under Section 27 (2) (r) and (q) of the Karnataka Rent act 1999 for want of jurisdiction.

(2.) IN pursuance of the notice issued to the respondent, neither he has appeared before this Court nor represented through a Counsel. He remained absent. Hence heard the arguments of the Learned Counsel for the revision petitioner and perused the records.

(3.) IT is contended by the Learned Counsel for the revision petitioner that the revision petitioner is a landlady of the building and she being the lawful owner having purchased the petition schedule premises in the year 1981 from her vendor for valuable consideration. At the time of purchasing the property, there was a mud house in existence with absestos sheet roofing. So after purchasing the premises, the khata has been transferred in her name and she has been paying the taxes. The respondent herein is a tenant under her since from 1. 3. 2001 occupying the second floor of the petition schedule premises on a monthly rental of rs. 2,300/- for a period of 11 months and subsequently, the rent has been increased at Rs. 2,530/- p. m. The tenancy was extended till 26. 2. 2004. In spite of the respondent agreeing to vacate the premises, he failed to do so. Therefore, she was constrained to issue a legal notice dated 10. 8. 2004 directing the respondent to vacate and hand over the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule premises. But the respondent herein sent a false and untenable contention that he is continuing in the petition schedule premises in spite of agreeing to vacate and to pay a sum of Rs. 14,000/- towards damages caused to his Car by the revision petitioner which was parked by the side of the petition schedule premises to which she is not responsible. The respondent herein has taken a contention before the Trial Court that the construction of the rented premises has not been completed within 15 years and as such, the eviction petition filed by the revision petitioner. is not maintainable and the Court below had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition and on that ground only, the eviction petition came to be dismissed. It is further submitted that after filing of the revision petition, she filed an application before this Court under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code to produce certain documents as additional evidence. Along with that application, she has filed her affidavit enclosing the Khata extract, registered sale deed, tax paid receipts etc. . , The submission of the Learned Counsel for the revision petitioner is that the said i. A. NO. 1/2007 is to be allowed. The documents produced by her would show that prior to purchasing the property bearing No. 134, "sukrut", Michael Palya, Indiranagar, Bangalore-560 038, there was in existence an asbestos sheet roof mud house and she purchased the property under a registered sale deed along with the mud houses which was constructed prior to 1980. Subsequently, she has obtained permission for expansion of the building from the competent authority after getting the khata transferred in her name. Therefore, the finding recorded by the trial Court that the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the eviction petition filed by the landlady as it is hit by Section 2 (3) (f) of Karnataka Rent Act 1999 is incorrect and therefore, she prays to set aside the order under challenge and remand the matter to adduce the evidence.