HILARY MASCARENHAS Vs. M SANJEEVA SHETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IA-1 of 2005 for impleading sought to be at the instance of Sri mahalingeswhara Temple, Puttur, dakshinakannada district, is not required to be entertained at this stage in a proceeding under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. IA-1/2005 is therefore rejected. It is open to the applicant-temple to workout its remedies elsewhere in accordance with law.

(2.) THIS writ petition is by the legal heirs of first respondent in HRC No. 3 of 1987, on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Jr Dn), Puttur, a petition under Section 21 (1) (a), (h) and (p) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 [for short, the Act], who are aggrieved by the order of eviction passed by the rent control court as per order dated 20-4-1991, which order came to be though slightly varied, but nevertheless the order of eviction was confirmed on one or the other ground as per the order dated 20-2-2001 passed in Revision (Rent)No. 136 of 1991, on the file of Second Additional district Judge, Mangalore. It is aggrieved by the order of eviction, which now remains only under Section 21 (1) (a) of the act, the present writ petition to get over the order of eviction.

(3.) IT is relevant to notice here that the tenant respondent in HRC No. 3/1987 had preferred hrrp No. 307 of 2001 before this court being aggrieved by these two orders, but this court having, in terms of the order dated 28-10-2003 [annexure -K to the writ petition], dismissed the revision petition with liberty to file a writ petition on the same cause of action and accordingly the present writ petition is filed.