INDUBAI Vs. NINGOUDA MALAGOUDA PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these two writ petitions as two portions of the same property are the subject matter, they are taken up for consideration together as the impugned order is one and the same.

(2.) The subject-matter of these proceedings is a shop premises bearing CTS No.2826, 2827 and .2828 situate at Sankeshwar, Hukkeri Taluk, Belgaum district. One Mallagouda Patil was the permanent tenant of these lands. After his death his son-first respondent in this proceeding Ningouda Malagouda Patil had leased this property in favour of Shivaram Govind Topade on monthly rental of Rs.83/-. About 50 years back, the said Shivaram Govind Topade sold lease hold rights under a registered sale deed dated 19.2.1975 in favour of Sri Dattatreya Vishnu Topade. Ningouda filed a suit O.S. No. 69 of 1978 against the said Dattatreya Vishnu Topade for ejectment. The said suit came to be dismissed on the ground that tenancy of Dattatreya was terminated under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. Thereafter, the said Dattatreya sold his lease hold rights in favour of the petitioners herein under a registered sale deed dated 21.10.1983 for a consideration of Rs. 12,500/-. From that day, the petitioners are in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. After the dismissal of the suit in O.S. No. 69 of 1978, Ningouda issued a notice dated 22.7.1984 to Dattatreya terminating his tenancy and thereafter filed HRC 1/1985 for eviction under Section 21(1)(a), (f) and (h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act. In the said proceedings, the petitioners herein were arrayed as respondents 2 and 3 as there was an illegal tenancy created in their favour. The petition was contested. Evidence was recorded.

(3.) The trial Court on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record allowed the petition and directed the respondents to deliver vacant possession within 3 months. The said order came to be passed on 3.1.1996. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents therein preferred a revision petition in HRC RP No. 39 of 1996 and 28 of 1996 before the District Judge, Belgaum. During the pendency of the aforesaid revision Petitions, Karnataka Rent Act, 1961, was repealed and it is replaced by Karnataka Rent Act, 1989. Section 70 of the present Act deals with what should happen to the pending proceedings. Therefore, the petitioner herein filed a memo stating that the proceedings have abated and they should be reserved liberty to challenge the said order in appropriate forum. The District Judge, on the basis of the said memo, dismissed the revision petition and the revision petitioners were directed to put the respondents in those proceedings in possession of the petition premises on or before 11/10/2002. Being aggrieved, Indubai and her children preferred writ petition challenging the order passed by the District Judge. Others also filed another Writ Petition. That is how these two writ petitions are filed before this Court i.e., Writ Petition No. 34512 of 2002 and Writ Petition No. 103 of 2002.