VISHNU NARAYAN Vs. PAPLAL BALDEV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision peti ion is instituted by the legal representatives of the tenant and is directed against the order dated 19-4-1975, passed by the Second Additional District Judge, Belgaum, in HRC.Appeal No.75 of 1972 on his file, dismissing the appeal of the LRs. of the tenant.

(2.) The landlord instituted action agains, the tenant, after terminating the tenancy, under Scc.21(1)(h) and (i) of the Karnataka Rent Control ACL, 1961, before the Munsiff, Belgaum. The learned Munsiff, appreciating the evidence en record, upheld the claim of the landlord and allowed the petition of the landlord with costs, granting three months to the tenant to vacate. Aggrieved by the said order, the tenant went up in appeal before the District Judge, Belgaum. During the pendency of the appeal, the tenant died and his LRs came on record. The learned District Judge held that the LRs of the tenant could not be allowed to contest the proceeding on merit and in that view, he dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the said order, the LRs. of the tenant have preferred the present Revision Petition.

(3.) The only pont that arises for my consideration is whether it is competent for the LRs. of the tenant, against whom a decree was passed, to contest the decree on merits. This Court in the case of Sundar Raj v. Kamalammam, (1975) 2 Kar.L.J. 459 has ruled that the LRs. of the statutory tenant cannot contest the proceedings on meri s. It is observed that Sec.51 of the Act provides for continuation of eviction proceedings against the legal representatives of the deceased tenant and that it does not confer any right on the LRs. of the deceased statutory tenant to contest on merits unless they set up an independent right of tenancy to the non-residential premises. The same view was taken in an earlier decision of this Court in the case of S. P. Hamisha Chandsha v. Seshagiri Bhiku Pai, (1973) 1 Kar.L.J. 127.