RENUKAMMA W/O SRI N.G. KERIYAPPA Vs. SRI RAMACHANDRA BHATTA S/O SRI MANJUNATHAIAH SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS. PRABHAKARA S/O LATE SRI RAMACHANDRA BHATTA, SRI RATHNAKARA S/O LATE SRI RAMACHANDRA BHATTA, SRI GANESHA S/O LATE SRI RAMACHANDRA BHATTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is filed by the landlady challenging the order dated 24.3.2006 made in revision rent No. 7/2000 by the Pri District Judge at Chitradurga. Originally, the petitioner herein had filed H.R.C. No. 3/93 before the Prl.Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Sagar. The same was allowed by order dated 10.12.1999 against which the respondent herein had preferred Revision Rent No. 7/2000 and by the impugned order, the eviction petition filed by the landlady was dismissed by allowing the revision petition. Being aggrieved by the said order, the landlady has preferred this revision petition.

(2.) FOR the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to in terms of their status before the trial court.

(3.) IN response to the notice issued by the trial court, the respondent appeared and filed his statement of objections denying the ownership of the petitioner in the schedule premises, without admitting that the thatched house had been converted into a tiled roofing house and that the premises belonged to the Revenue Department of Sannamane Village and not to the municipality, the respondent denied that he had sold the schedule property to the petitioner on 14.7.1967. He also stated that the Town Municipality had no right to execute or issue sale certificate in respect of a revenue site which was situated in Sannamane Village, it was also contended as false that the respondent had taken the premises on lease on 1.1.1984 from the petitioner and had agreed to pay a rent of Rs. 150/ -per month. The respondent denied the relationship cf landlord and tenant in respect of the schedule premises. It was, however, admitted that the electricity was obtained to the premises at his own cost and that the respondent himself had constructed the entire house having tiled roofing. Adverse possession was also claimed against the petitioner with effect from 14.7.1967 by way of additional objections. It was submitted that the petitioner and her husband were living at Bangalore, having their own house and that the hasband of the petitioner had his ancestral house at Talaguppa and that the respondent was living in the house constructed by him and the same was not granted by the Revenue Authorities or Municipal Authorities. Hence, dismissal of the petition was sought.