GAJANAN KRISHNARAO Vs. SIDDANNAVAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition filed under S.50 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act',)the petitioner has challenged the order dated 8-1-1975 passed on IA.No.1 in HRC No.129/74 by the II Auditional Munsiff, Belgaum.

(2.) IA/No.2 in HRC.No.129/74 was filed by the respondents, who are admittedly the landlords of the schedule premises. The petitioner is admittedly the tenant of the schedule premises. By IA.No.1 which the respondents purported to file under S.10 read with S.151 of the CPC, the respondents prayed that the enquiry in HRC.No.129/74 should be stayed till OS.No.34/74, which admittedly, was previously instituted by the petitioner-tenant, was decided. The learned 11 Additional Munsiff has direccted stay of the enquiry in HRC.No.129/74.

(3.) The Beigaum Municipality issued a notice to the petitioner-tenant and the respondent-landlords to demolish the schedule premises on the ground that the same had become dilapidated and so was dangerous to tne public. The petitioner-tenant filed OS.No.34/74 against the respondents-landlords and the Municipality praying for injunction on the ground that the schedule premises was not in a dilapidated condition or in a dangerous condition ag contended by them. The Munsift, on the interlocutory application filed by the petitioner, ordered that status quo should be maintained. Thereafter, the petitioner filed HRC.No.129/74 as against the landlords only under S.44 of the Act. in HRC.No.129/74, the petitioner has made out a case that he is a tenant of the schedule premises on a monthly rent of Rs.50 and the respondents themselves, being influential people in Belgaum, had made the Municipality to issue a notice which is challenged in OS.No.34/74 and that the respondents themselves tried to demolish the schedule premises but he obstructed them and gave a complaint to the police. While attempting to demolish the building, the respondents have removed the tiles and that has caused heavy leakage. Therefore, the petitioner issued a notice to the respondents calling upon them to effect necessary repairs but the respondents did not care to do so. Hence, he has filed HRC.No.129/74 praying that the Court by exercising its power under S.44 of the Act, should direct the respondents to attend to the necessary repairs.