G KALURAM Vs. K G SHIVASAHANKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 21. 3. 2006 passed by the II Addl. Small Causes Judge, Bangalore in hrc No. 111/004 whereby the eviction petition by the respondent-landlord filed under Section 27 (2) (a) and (r) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 came to be allowed directing the petitioner-tenant to vacate the petition schedule premises within 21. 6. 2006 and to pay the arrears of rent of Rs. 24,750/ -.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the respondent/landlord herein filed the eviction petition against the petitioner/tenant herein under Section 27 (2) (a) and (r) of K. R. Act 1999 contending that he is the absolute owner of the petition schedule premises which is residential in nature having acquired the same through registered Will executed by his father late r. K. Govindaraj Mudalier. Originally the property belonged to his father and that subsequently the BDA has acquired the property and on representation made by the father of the respondent a registered sale deed dated 31. 5. 1996 has been executed by BDA in favour of the father of the respondent. It is further case of the respondent that prior to acquisition of the property by the BDA his father had constructed a house over the schedule property and let out one portion in favour of petitioner on monthly rent of Rs. 550/ -. That the petitioner has been paying rents to the father of the respondent regularly. The father of the respondent died on 22. 2. 2002 leaving behind the respondent to succeed his estate. But the petitioner after the death of the father of the respondent, has not paid rents to the respondent and when questioned, he evaded the payment of rents. Hence the respondent issued a legal notice dated 18. 7. 2003 to the petitioner calling upon him to pay Rs. 7,700/- towards arrears of rents from June 2002 till the end of July 2003 at the rate of 550/- per month. Inspite of service of notice the petitioner has not complied with the demands made by the respondent and had given untenable reply to the said notice. It is further case of the respondent/landlord that the family of the respondent/landlord consisting of himself, his wife and one son and a daughter and that his children were studying and he is Central Government employee and that he is suffering from old age aliments and that he require petition schedule premises for his bonafide use and occupation to accommodate his children, hence he filed the eviction petition.

(3.) IN pursuance of service of notice, the petitioner appeared through the Counsel and filed the objection on the ground that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between respondent and himself. However, he admits that the father of the respondent is the owner of the suit schedule premises, but according to him after the death of the father of the respondent the brother of the respondent one Sri Late G. Sampangiraman succeeded to the estate of R. K Govindaraj and he paid rents to him and after the death of said G. Sampangiraman he is paying rents to one Rajeshwari and Mohan Kumar who are the wife and son of the said late G. Sampangiraman. It is further contended by the petitioner-tenant that he took the schedule property on lease from late G. Sampangiraman on monthly rent of Rs. 50/- in the year 1971 and paid a sum of Rs. 15,000/- as security deposit. It is however admitted by the petitioner that R. K Govindaraj Modaliar died on 22. 2. 2002 leaving behind the respondent and his brother late Sampangiraman. It is further case of the petitioner that his family consists of 8 members and he is residing in the petition schedule premises from the last 33 years and if an order of eviction is passed he will be put to great hardship and irreparable loss.