SUBHASH JADHAV Vs. RAVISHANKAR RASALKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code by the revision petitioner-tenant to set aside the order dated 8-7-2005 passed by the Principal District Judge, Gulbarga, in RRP No. 11/2004 confirming the Order passed by the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gulbarga, in HRC No. 110/1996, dated 9-9-2004.

(2.) The brief facts leading to this case are that the respondent herein being the owner landlord, constructed the premises at plot No. 45 of Super Market, Gulbarga. Both the respondent and his brother are running readymade clothes in the portion of the shop premises. Prior to the setting up of said business, the respondent herein leased a portion of the shop in the ground floor measuring 6' x 20' to these revision petitioners to carry on the business i.e.. Taxi hire business in the year 1979. Later on, the revision petitioners took another portion of the said shop measuring 20'x 10' adjoining to the above mentioned premises for running the money lending business. The respondent - landlord and his brother who started business in readymade clothes in the remaining portion of the shop on the ground floor only. The present accommodation is insufficient for them. The request was made to the revision petitioners in the month of October 1991 to vacate both the portions of the premises and deliver vacant possession of the same. They promised to vacate during Deepavali 1993. They have not paid the arrears of rent from April 1992 onwards at the rate of Rs. 800/- per month for each portion. Instead of vacating the premises as promised, the petitioners filed a suit in O. S. No. 811/ 1993 before the Principal Munsiff, Gulbarga. Subsequently, vacated the portion of the premises measuring 10'x20' and paid the rents up to October 1993 and promised to vacate the petition schedule premises by Deepavali 1994. But, the revision petitioners-tenants failed to keep up their promise neither vacated the said premises nor paid the rent. The petition schedule premises is required for the respondent to store articles - bales containing textiles and to provide the Toilet facility to the employees of his shop. The revision petitioners used to put off the electrical switches of the motor in the middle causing nuisance to the respondent and also the other tenants who are in occupation of the first and second floors of the building started complaining of shortage of water. The revision petitioners are misusing water from the Tanki by giving it to others and to petty hotel keepers and others to keep their utensils by collecting the rent and water charges, without the consent of the respondent-landlord. Therefore, the eviction petition filed by the respondent under Section 21( l)(a)(d)(f)(h) and (p) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act. During the pendency of the eviction petition, Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 came into force. Thereafter, after considering the evidence placed on record by both the parties, Trial Court allowed the eviction petition filed under Section 27 (i)(a) of the Karnataka Rent Act, but dismissed the eviction petition filed under Section 21(l)(d)(f)(h) and (p) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, directing the revision-petitioners to pay the arrears of rents within one month and on failure, he shall vacate and hand over the vacant possession to the respondent-landlord. But, the respondent landlord challenged this Order before the learned principal District Judge, Gulbarga, in RRP. 11/2004. After considering the material on record, the learned District Judge allowed the revision petition directing the revision- petitioners to vacate the petition premises within two months. Now, the revision petitioners being the tenants have challenged these two orders in this revision petition.

(3.) Heard the arguments.