GUNDU DATTATRAYA KALAGHATGI Vs. MANOHAR SOMANNA GODSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two petitions are directed against the order dt.18-6-1974 passed by the Principal Munsift, Belgaum, in HRC.12 of 1971. The petitioner in CRP.1276 of 1974 is opponent-2 and the petitioner in CRP.1580 of 1974 is opponent-1 in the said case. Respondent-1 in both the revision petitions is petitioner-1 in the said case. In the course of this order, the parties would be referred to as petitioner-1, opponent-1 and opponent-2 as they were designated before the Munsiff.

(2.) The premises in question is a shop bearing CTS.930/2A-4 situated in the market at Belgaum.

(3.) The undisputed facts are that opponent-1 Shankar Yellappa Rajannavar owns the premises. Petitioner-1 was a tenant in the premises and opponent-1 filed HRC. 75 of 1967 praying for vacant possession of the premises. His application was allowed on 19-10-1968 and petitioner-1 filed HRCA. 86 of 1968, which was disposed of on 30-8-1969 against petitioner-1. He filed CRP. 2038 of 1969 and failed. Ultimately, on 20-1-1970 vacant possession of the premises was given to opponent-1. By Novr, 1970 opponent-2 has been inducted in the premises. Petitioner-1 and two others filed an application under S.25 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on 13-1-71. In the first instance the Munsiff dismissed the application by his order dt.10-7-1972 holding that opponent-1 had succeeded on the ground available to him under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act and not under S.21 (1) (h) of the Act, and hence, the application under S.25 of the Act, was not maintainable. Petitioner-1 filed CRP. 1900 of 1972 in this Court and this Court by its order dt.23-7-73 held that opponent-1 had secured vacant possession on the only ground that he required it bona fide for his personal occupation under S.21(1), (h) of the Act and the Munsiff ought to take that into consideration and dispose of the application filed under S.25 of the Act by petitioner-1 afresh according to law. Sri P.D.Thilave, Advocate appearing on behalf of opoonent-1 filed IA-2 on 15-10-1973 on behalf of opponent-1 praying for permission to file additional objection statement. Petitioner-1 filed his objections to IA-2. By the time IA.-2 came up for hearing the said Advocate expired and the Court sent Court-notice to opponent-1 to appear in Court. As per the order sheet maintained by the Munsiff, it is seen that though there was sufficient service of the Court-notice on opponent-1, he remained ex-parte. IA-2 has been dismissed on the date the order in question was passed, on the ground that opponent-1 has remained ex-parte.