NAGAMMA Vs. S V VENKATARAMU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three revision petitions are presented by the, tenants against whom an order of eviction has been passed by the Court of the Civil Judge, Bangalore on petitions presented by the respondent under S. 21 (1) (a) & (h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). As the respondent is common and common questions arise for consideration, they are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) When these three petitions were posted for objections before the Court below, the petitioners-tenants remained absent though notices had been served. In the two petitions, out of which CRP No. 593 and 605 of 1979 arise, the learned Civil Judge passed an ex-parte order of eviction relying on sub-rule (2) of R. 5 of Or. 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The order made in HRC No. 938/78 out of which CRP No. 605 of 1979 arises, reads as follows: -

(3.) In my opinion, orders made in HRC No. 895/78 and HRC No. 938/78 against which CRP Nos. 593 and 605 of 1979, respectively have been R. 42 presented, cannot be sustained,. Under S. 21 of the Act, an order of eviction can be made against a tenant only on any one of the grounds mentioned in Clauses (a) to (p) of that section. The existence of one or more of the grounds and also other conditions subject to which alone an order of eviction can be made in favour of the landlord constitutes the foundation for the exercise of the power. Therefore, even if the respondent-tenant remained absent, it was the duty of the court below to consider the merits of the case of the landlord, and to have recorded a finding as to whether the ground, on the basis of which eviction was sought for existed and it falls under anyone of the clauses under S. 21 of the Act.