MOHANLAL Vs. M SUBRAMANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is filed by the unsuccessful tenant to set aside the Order dated 5. 10. 2005 passed by the II Additional small Causes Judge, Bangalore in HRC No. 1059/2000.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case is that the respondent/landlord had filed the eviction petition against the revision petitioner herein under Section 21 (l) (h) of the KR Act which came to be considered under Section 27 (2) (r)of the KR Act, seeking eviction of the revision petitioner/tenant, on the ground of requirement of the petition schedule premises for his bona fide use and occupation, the said eviction petition was registered by the revision petitioner before the Court below, the Court below after considering the case of the parties and the evidence placed on record, passed the order under challenge, allowing the said eviction petition filed by the respondent herein, granting 3 months time to the revision petitioner/tenant to vacate and handover vacant possession of the petition schedule premises. Being aggrieved by the said order of eviction passed by the Court below the revision petitioner/tenant has come up with this revision petition.

(3.) IT is argued by the Counsel for the revision petitioner that eviction petition filed by the respondent herein is not at all maintainable in law and that all the owners of the petition schedule premises are not made as a party and the petition filed by only one of the co-owner without the permissions of the other co-owners is not at all maintainable. It is argued that the respondent's sister Smt. Vijayalakshmi filed a suit O. S. No. 3357 of 1991 on the file of the City Civil Court, Bangalore seeking partition and separate possession of their joint family properties which includes the petition schedule premises. The said suit was disposed of. Against the said judgment and decree RFA No. 488 of 98 was filed and the same was allowed on 17. 7. 01 decreeing the suit granting l/4th share to the sisters of the respondent herein. Therefore it is argued that the respondent-landlord has no right to maintain the eviction petition and he has no right to act on behalf of all other co-owners in view of the decree of partition. It is further contended by the revision petitioner-tenant that the schedule premises is more than 14 Sq. Mts. Therefore the Trial Court has no jurisdiction to maintain the eviction petition. The revision petitioner-tenant requires the petition schedule premises to carry on his business in the name and style of "m. K. Fancy Stores. " The petitioner has denied running two other businesses in the ground floor and first floor of property No. 162, O. K. Road and contended that the respondent is in the habit of evicting the tenants with the sole intention to get more rent.