KODDI NAGAPPA DECEASED Vs. HAMPAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition under S. 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, by the tenant, now represented by his legal heirs, who had suffered an eviction order in the eviction petition instituted against him by the respondent-landlord in HRC No, 35 of 1996, on the file of the Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and JMFC. Bellary. in terms of the order dated 20-11 -2000, and had been directed to vacate the premises and hand over vacant possession under the provisions of S. 21 ( 1) (h)and 21 (1) (k) of the Karnataka Rent Control act. 1961 (for short, the 1961 Act)

(2.) THE legal heirs of tenant though had preferred a revision petition in HRCR No. 7 of 2002, on the file of Principal District Judge, bellary, and though succeeded in getting over the order of eviction passed by the Court of first instance, in terms of the order dated 17-3-2005, were nevertheless caught in the web of S. 5 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 (for short, the 1999 Act), which enactment has replaced the 1961 Act and being legal heirs of the deceased original tenant and being required to vacate the premises on the expiry of the five years from the date of death of the original tenant and having been ordered to hand over the vacant possession of the premises on or before 15-2-2006, are complaining before this court questioning the correctness of the order passed by the Rent revisional Court in applying the provisions of S. 5 of the 1999 Act, to this case in this revision under S. 115. C. P. C.

(3.) SRI Abhinav, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has put forth a twofold argument. It is firstly contended that the revisional Court while exercising its revisional jurisdiction under S. 5 of the Rent Control Act, 1961 and later under S. 46 of the Karnataka rent Act, 1999, could not have passed an eviction order against the petitioners to quit and hand over vacant possession of the premises on and after 15-2-2006 by invoking S. 5 of the 1999 Act. It is submitted that assuming the provisions of S. 5 are applicable to the petitioners also, the Court could not have passed such an order suo motu unless the landlady had sought for eviction on this ground and the order is also bad for the reason that the revision petitioner as saddled with such an order, even without according to them an opportunity to present their version notwithstanding the revision petitioner being successful in getting over the order of eviction that the tenant had suffered at the hands of the court of first instance under S. 21 (1) (h) and s. 21 (1) (k) of the 1961 Act. Elaborating this submission Sri Abhinav would further contend that passing an order invoking the provisions of S. 5 as in the present case also amounts to violation of principles of natural justice as the petitioner never had an opportunity to put forth the defence, if any, that was available to the revision petitioners, that such an order should not have been passed even without an opportunity to contend that S. 5 of the Act was not applicable to the present case.