V N NAGARAJ Vs. K V SRINIVASA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THOUGH the matter is listed for admission by consent of both the counsel, it is taken up for final hearing and disposed of.

(2.) THIS revision petition is filed by the unsuccessful tenants under S. 115 of C. P. C. to set aside the order passed by the Principal district Judge, Kolar in R. R. No. 6/2004 dated 30th March, 2007, so also the judgment and decree passed by the Principal Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) J. M. F. C. , Chickaballapur in H. R. C. No. 11/91 dated 30th March, 2004.

(3.) THE case of the respondents-landlord is that the petition schedule premises has fallen to the share of the respondents in the partition. The father of the petitioners took the petition schedule premises on lease from the mother of the respondents. The respondents herein filed a suit for partition and a compro mise decree was drawn in the said suit and the petition schedule premises had fallen to the share of the respondents. Initially deceased lakshmidevamma filed H. R. C. No. 18/70 against the very same revision petitioners for eviction, subsequently the said eviction petition came to be withdrawn. After due notice to the revision petitioners, the respondents filed eviction petition under S. 21 of the karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 before the civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and JMFC, Chickballapur in H. R. C. No. 11/1991. The revision petitioners herein appeared through their counsel and filed objections contending that the petition schedule premises consists of three houses and one main house towards the north which is in possession of the revision petitioners-tenants. There are two other houses to the southern side, which are not the subject-matter of the lease and the respondents are not in possession of those two houses on the southern side and the same was kept vacant. The revision petitioners herein admitted that they are ready to pay the rents due to the person who is entitled to receive the same. The revision petitioners happens to be agriculturist and their land is situated very close to the petition schedule property and so a suitable premises for the revision petitioners cannot be found in that area. Both the parties adduced evidence before the trial Court. After considering the evidence, the trial Court found that the petition schedule premises is required for bona fide use and occupation of the respondents landlords. Therefore, the eviction petition came to be allowed which has been challenged by the revision petitioners herein before the district Judge, Kolar in R. R. No. 6/04. The district Judge, Kolar considered the materi als placed on record and confirmed the order passed by the trial Court and dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioners-tenants. Being aggrieved by the said order, the revision petitioners herein filed this revision petition challenging the same.