RUKMINIBAI KOM LAXMAN MURKOTE Vs. GOUSUSAB MOULASAB MATIGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the Court of the Additional Civil Judge, Hubli, in R.A. No.116/74 arising out of the judgment and decree of the II Addl. Munsiff, Hubli, in O.S. No. 376/72.

(2.) The brief facts are that the present respondent-1 had filed H.R.C. No. 27/1970 before the Court of Principal Munsiff at Hubli for eviction of the opponents therein i.e., the present appellants on the ground under Sec. 21(1)(h) of the Mysore Rent Control Act, from the petition premises which is CIS 3152 of ward No. 3 at Hubli City. The applicant therein alleged that he had purchased the suit property on 25-4-1959 from the heirs of Davoodsab Sudaraji opponent No. 1 on 25-4-1969. There was an agreement that opponent-1 should pay a rent of 24/- per month. Opponent-1 denied title of the said Davoodsab Sudaraji to the petition premises. Notice was issued before filing the petition. The opponent contended that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between them and denied that the property bearing CTS No. 3152 belongs to them. That Laxman Murkote husband of opponent-1 and the father of opponents-2 to 4 were in need of money. They executed an ostensible sale deed in favour of Davoodsab Sudaraji ; that it was in the nature of mortgage and opponent-1 and her husband had purchased the property from Laxman Danappa Bhingekar dated 23-2-1960 and therefore they were residing in the suit property as owners. They thus challenged the competence of the petitioner to approach the court under the Rent Control Act for eviction. Having considered these rival contentions the learned Munsiff directed by his order dated 17-1-1971 the applicant add the opponents to establish their rights in such manner as they found it possible to do so in a properly instituted suit by approaching the competent civil court, though it was competent for the H.R.C. court to decide the status of the parties unless it was so complicated as not to enable it to decide the HRC court may order. These facts are not challenged by the parties.

(3.) In pursuance of this direction the present respondent-1 filed 0 S. No. 367/ 1972 before the Munsiff Court, Hubli. and contended that the present appellant is a tresspaser ; that he was in possession of the property without any right or title. He had denied his title and therefore sought declaration of his title and also actual possession of the property from the present appellant. In the written statement defendant-1 i.e., the appellant raised some contentions as before the HRC court. The Trial court found that the respondent's title was established and at the same time found that the appellant is the tenant over the suit property and not a trespasser. But in view of the prayer made it declared that the plaintiff therein was entitled to recover Rs. 864/- as past mesne profits and also directed to hand over possession of the property to the plaintiff. The appeal preferred before the first appellate court failed. Now the appellant-tenant has preferred the second appeal.