LAKSHMINARAYANA SONY Vs. C BASHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have come up with this revision petition challenging the order dated 1-4-2004 passed in HRC 1355/1997 on the file of the XII Additional Small Causes judge (SCCH-8), Bangalore, whereby the learned trial Judge allowed the eviction petition filed by the respondent under Section 27 (2) (a) and under Section 45 of the K. R. Act 1999 and the petitioners herein are directed to vacate the petition schedule premises within 1 month from the date of the said order. The petitioners are also challenging in this petition the interlocutory orders dated 21-12-2002 dismissing the LA. filed by the petitioner under Section 43 of the K. R. Act and also order dated 8-4-2003 allowing the application filed by the respondent herein under Section 45 of the K. R. Act and directing the petitioners to deposit the rents from 25-1-1997 to 24-3-2003 amounting to Rs. 74,000/- at Rs. 1,000/-per month.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the respondent herein filed the eviction petition against the petitioners herein under S. 27 (2) (a) (f) and (h) of the Karnataka Rent control Act, 1961. During the pendency of the eviction petition before the lower Court karnataka Rent Act, 1999 came to be passed and the said petition came to be considered under the new Act. The case of the respondent herein is that he is the absolute owner of the petition schedule premises having acquired the same under the registered sale deed dated 25-1-1997 from its previous owner one Sri. Diwakar son of late Venkatachala. That the petitioner No. 1 herein is the tenant under the vendor of the respondent on no rent no interest basis and the petitioner has paid Rs. 2,50,000/- to the vendor of the respondent as fixed deposit, that the term of lease is 31/2 years and after the termination of the said period if the petitioner No. 1 intends to continue in the petition schedule premises he was required pay to the landlord monthly rent of Rs. 1,000/ -. That after purchase of the petition schedule property by the respondent, by operation of law the petitioner No. 1 had become tenant under the respondent, that the petitioner No. 1 failed to pay any rent to him and in spite of notice demanding rent has been sent to the petitioner No. 1, he had failed to pay the rent. It is further case of the respondent that without permission of the previous owner Sri diwakar or the respondent, the petitioner No. 1 has sub-let the petition schedule premises to the petitioner No. 2 and making profit out of the same. That the petition schedule premises is required for their bona fide use and occupation and that he has no other residential premises of his own and that the schedule premises is required for his bona fide use and occupation. Hence he filed the eviction petition.

(3.) THE petitioners have filed common objection statement and objected/contested the said petition mainly on the ground that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the respondent and themselves. The case of the petitioner No. 1 is that he was inducted into the petition schedule premises by the vendor of the respondent herein under an agreement dated 3-2-1993 and under the agreement they have paid Rs. 2,50,000/- to the vendor of the respondent that subsequently on 22-1-1994 they have entered into an agreement of sale in respect of the petition schedule premises for a total sale consideration of rs. 7,50,000/- and that he had paid 5,00,000/-as advance, including Rs. 2,50,000/- which was with the vendor of the respondent as initial deposit when the petitioner was inducted into the petition schedule premises. That the vendor of the respondent had failed to execute the sale deed in his favour therefore he filed a suit O. S. 661/1997. Seeking for specific performance of the said agreement against the vendor of the respondent and on 22-1-1997 he obtained interim order restraining htm from alienating the petition schedule premises. It is their further case that the 2nd petitioner is not sub-tenant and that he is the father-in-law of the 1st petitioner.