ANKAIAH Vs. M VEERABHADRAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision petition under S. 50(1) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 1961 Act), the petitioner who is also the petitioner in H.R.C. No. 2036 of 1975 has challenged the order dated 24-6-1978 of the IV Addl. Civil Judge, Bangalore City, permitting the learned counsel for the respondent to put certain questions.

(2.) In H.R.C. No. 2036 of 1975 the petitioner has sought far eviction of the respondent under S. 21(1) (a) and (f) of the 1961 Act. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent who is admittedly his brother has taken the petition schedule premises (hereinafter referred to as 'the premises') on lease and has defaulted in payment of rents and has sublet the premises. to] another person. Among others, the respondent resisted the petition on the ground that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. He has also asserted that the partition deed dated 20-8-1970 under which the petitioner claims to be the owner and landlord of the premises is a nominal deed. In the course of the cross-examination of the petitioner, the learner counsel for the respondent sought to put certain questions on the nominal na,ture of the partition deed dated 20-8-1970 pleaded by the respondent. At that stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner objected to those questions on the ground that a Court functioning under the 1961 Act can only examine the relationship of landlord and tenant as' a jurisdictional fact and cannot examine the validity of the partition deed on any of the grounds. On a consideration of the contentions urged by the learned counsel, the learned Civil Judge in an unduly lengthy order to the question that arose before him has passed an order over-ruling the objections raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the course of his order, the learned Civil Judge has held that it was open to the learned counsel for the respondent to elicit answers on the nominal nature of the partition deed pleaded by him. But in his order, the learned Civil Judge has not set out the questions that were put by the learned counsel for the respondent .

(3.) Shri S. Krishnaiah, learned, counsel for the petitioner, strenuosly contended that under the 1961 Act, it is not open to a Court functioning under the said Act to examine the validity of the partition deed on any of the grounds pleaded by the respondent and therefore the order passed by the learned Civil Judge holding that it was permissible for the learned counsel for the respondent to elicit answers on the nominal nature of the partition deed is erroneous. Shri S. V. Narasimhan, learned counsel for the respondent, urged that this revision petition under S. 50 of the 1961 Act is not maintainable. Shri Narasimhan maintained that the order passed by the learned Civil Judge is in the course of an examination of a witness and relates to the relevancy of a question and cannot therefore be construed as an order deciding any of the rights of the parties, to hold that it is an order revisable under Section 50 of the, 1961 Act. In support of his contention, Shri Narasimhan strongly relied on a ruling of the Supreme Court in Central Bank of India v. Gokulchand AIR 1967 SC. 799