CLAY (CLARENCE) FERNANDIS Vs. AUDREY PEREIRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These revision petitions arise out of the eviction proceedings in HRC No.51/2011 on the file of the III Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Belagavi (for short 'the Rent Court').

(2.) The revision petition in HRRP No.100003/2018 has its genesis in the order dated 01.03.2017 passed by the Rent Court in HRC No.51/2011 accepting the memo filed by the respondent-landlord for deletion of Mrs. Flory Fernandis, respondent No.1 arrayed as tenant in occupation of the subject premises in the eviction petition. The HRRP No.100006/2018 has its genesis in the order dated 18.08.2018 passed by the Rent Court in HRC No.51/2011 rejecting the application filed by the petitioners under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC seeking leave to amend the objections statement. The petitioners impugned both the orders dated 01.03.2017 and 18.08.2018 in the respective revision petitions in HRRP(Rent)No.2/2017 and HRCP No.8/2018. These revision petitions have been rejected by the impugned orders.

(3.) The respondent commenced the eviction proceedings HRC No.51/2011 seeking eviction of Mrs. Flory Fernandis and the petitioners herein from the schedule premises. It is not in dispute that the petitioners herein are the son and daughter-in-law of the deceased Mary Fernandis, who died on 04.11.2016. On her demise, the respondent-landlord filed a memo seeking deletion of Mary Fernandis, and in effect seeking dispensation from bringing on record all her legal heirs on record. The petitioners objected to such deletion. However, the Rent Court, placing reliance upon Section 5 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, concluded that only those successors of the deceased tenant, who ordinarily reside or carry on business in the premises with the deceased tenant would be entitled to inherit the tenancy under Section 5(1) or 5(2) depending on whether the successors were dependent upon the tenant or not. Even according to the electoral roll, only petitioners were residing with the Mary Fernandis. As such, only they could continue the proceedings and the other legal heirs of Mary Fernandis cannot be impleaded in the proceedings. The Revision Court has dismissed the revision filed by the petitioners holding that the petitioners had not made out any ground for interference in view of the provisions of Section 5 of the Rent Act, 1999 and the undisputed fact that only the petitioners were residing with the deceased Mary Fernandis.