B RAGHURAM SHETTY Vs. ARUN BHANDARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (THIS Writ petition is filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order dated 17. 4. 2008 passed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Mangalore in Revision (Rent) Petition No. 23/2007 (Annexure A ). Writ petitioner claims to be the absolute owner of the property bearing D. No. 3-w-7-618 and 618a and appurtenant lands situated at Kadiri 'b' village coming under the Mangalore City Corporation. It is the version of the petitioner that the property was purchased by the petitioner by means of a registered as document No. 405/05-06. It is also averred that the property originally belonged to one Mr. Balappa Shetty and after his death Dr. Sharath Kumar Shetty, Dr. Santosh Kumar Shetty and Smt. Zareena Punja have acquired title over the property and it is the very property, the petitioner claim to have purchased in terms of a sale deed dated 21. 4. 2005 executed by Dr. Sharath Kumar Shetty, Dr. Santosh Kumar Shetty and Smt. Zareena Punja, and last two of them having acted through their attorneys. It is the further averment that the erstwhile owner Mr. Balappa Shetty had leased the property in favour of one Arum Bandari. The said Mr. Balappa Shetty had instituted an eviction petition in HRC No. 234/1995 under the provisions of Sections 21 (1) (a), 21 (1) (b), 21 (1) (c), 21 (1) (o) and Section 21 (6) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (an 'act' in short ).

(2.) THIS petition came to be allowed only under Section 21 (1) (c) of the Act and came to be dismissed on the other grounds namely Sections 21 (1) (b), 21 (1) (d), 21 (1) (o) and 21 (6) of the Act. As against this order, while the tenant preferred a revision petition under section 50 of the Act before the District Judge, at Mangalore in Rent Revision under Section 50 of the Act before the District Judge, at Mangalore in Rent Revision Petition No. 36/2000 the landlord also had preferred revision petition No. 48/2000. The endeavour on the part of the petitioner was to get rid of the order under Section 21 (1) (c) of the Act. Endeavor of the landlord was to bolster the order of eviction on the other grounds also. In terms of the order dated 18. 11. 2000, the learned I Addl. District Judge, Mangalore, Dakshina Kannada while dismissing the Revision Petition filed by the tenant, allowed the Revision Petition in the sense that the order of eviction was confirmed on additional grounds and as in the mean while, the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 had came to be replaced by the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, by indicating that the eviction petition was allowed under the corresponding provision of the 1999 Act namely under Section 27 (2) (1) and (c) of the Act, and the petition was dismissed under Section 27 (2) (m) and (d) of the Act.

(3.) TWO Revision Petitions that had been filed by the tenants before this Court in HRRP No. 85/2004 and HRRP No. 84/2004 came to be dismissed as withdrawn in terms of a Memo filed by the Revision petitioner as per the order dated 1. 3. 2006.