HEBBURAPPA GOWDA Vs. B M BENAKATTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision petition, under S. 50(1) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act of 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ' the Act ') the petitioner challenged the order dated 28-7-1977 of the IV Addl. Civil Judge, Bangalore City allowing the application of the respondent for his eviction.

(2.) Admittedly the petitioner is in occupation of a portion of the premises bearing No. 493 situated at Magadi Road Chord Road, X Main, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as ' the premises ') as tenant of the respondent on a monthly rent of Rs. 70. On 18-1-1974 the respondent filed a petition under S. 21(1)(a) and (h) of the Act in the Court of the First Munsiff, Bangalore, for eviction of the petitioner which later came to be transferred to the court of the Civil Judge on the enactment of the Karnataka Rent Control (Amendment) Act of 1975. In his petition, the respondent asserted that the petitioner was irregular in payment of rents and was due in a sum of Rs. 420 without specifying the period for which he was due in that sum. Secondly, the respondent asserted that the premises was required for his bona fide use and occupation in the circumstances narrated in para 6 of his petition. In his objection statement, the petitioner denied that he was due in the sum claimed by the respondent and also his claim that the premises was required for his bona fide use and occupation.

(3.) On 28-11-1974 the respondent filed an application, numbered as I.A. No.1, under S. 29(1) of the Act to stop the proceedings and deliver vacant possession of the premises. In his affidavit accompanying I.A. No. I the respondent alleged that the petitioner was due in a sum of Rs. 840 for 12 months for the period ending 30th June 1974, which was opposed by the petitioner. In his objection to I.A. No. I the petitioner asserted that he was not due in any arrears of rent. In support of their respective eyes I. A. No.I, the parties filed their memo of calculations and also placed the evidence before court. On a consideration of the memo of calculation and the evidence placed by the parties, the learned IV Adl. Civil Judge passed an order on 11-6-1976 on I.A. No. I that for the period ending May 1976, the petitioner was due in a sum of Rs. 30 to the respondent and that the same should be paid or deposited on or before 21-6-1976 with a further direction that rents in future should be paid regularly as and when they accrue. In compliance with this order the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 30 on 17-6-76 which amount has been drawn by the respondent. Evidently after the petitioner complied with the order made on I.A. No. I the court proceeded with the trial on merits. In support of his case the respondent examined himself and closed his case, while the petitioner in addition to examining one Kadaiah as D.W. 2 examined himself and closed his case On a consideration of the evidence placed by the parties, the learned Civil Judge, by his order dated 28-7-1977, found, (i) that there was a proper termination of tenancy ; (ii) that the petitioner was in arrears of rent and had not paid the same within two months from the date of receipt of notice; and (iii) that the respondent does not require the premises for his bona fide use and occupation and that an order of eviction would cause greater hardship to the petitioner. But in view of his finding on the arrears of rent, the learned Civil Judge allowed the application filed by the respondent granting three months time to the petitioner to vacate the premises. Under Sec. 50(1) of the Act, the petitioner has challenged the order of the learned Civil Judge contending that the finding recorded by him on the arrears of rent is erroneous and the respondent is not entitled for a decree for eviction under S. 21(1) (a) of the Act. The revision petition presented by the petitioner on 29-9 1977 was posted for admission before Venkataramiah, J, on 6-10-1977 on which day Sri G. E. Kotre took notice for the respondent and filed power. Evidently, after hearing both sides Venkataramiah, J, admitted the revision petition and granted an order of stay on the same day. Even though the respondent took notice of this revision petition on 6-10-1977, he has neither filed an independent revision petition nor any cross-objections challenging the finding of the learned Civil Judge and the apparent rejection of his application under S. 21(1) (h) of the Act.