KRISHNASA KHEERASA HABIB Vs. SHAH PARASMAL PITTAJI JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenant has preferred this revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure alleging that both the Courts below have erred in determining the jurisdictional issue pertaining to the alleged relationship of landlord and tenant between the contesting parties.

(2.) IT is not in dispute that the petition premises measuring 10' x 10' abutting station road is part and parcel of C. T. S. No. 2674, Hubli Municipality, which in all measures 75' x 10'. It was owned by Moorusaviramath. The Swamiji of the Math had given on lease the petition premises along with the other abutting properties to a Partnership firm M/s. Shah Parasmal Pittaji Jain and Sons, (in short the 'firm') in the year 1969 for a period of 9 (nine) years. The petition Premises was sub-leased to the present Petitioner by the firm much before the expiry of the period of lease in favour of the firm. The respondent took the entire CTS along with the petition Premises on lease for a period of 51 years under the registered lease deed dated 6-2-1974 (Ex. P-1 ). Subsequently, the respondent filed eviction petition in the Court of the 1st Additional Munsiff at Hubli being H. R. C. No. 67/76 seeking eviction of the petitioner on the ground of bona fide personal necessity in terms of Clauses (h) and (j) of the proviso to Section 21 (1) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (in short the 'k. R. C. Act' ).

(3.) IN the trial Court, the petitioner entered his appearance and filed his objections inter alia contending that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between him and the respondent and therefore the eviction proceedings were not maintainable. However, the plea so raised by him was rejected by the trial judge and directed eviction by accepting the plea of the respondent of having bona fide personal necessity. Against the above judgment, the petitioner preferred revision under Section 50 of the KRC Act before the District Judge, Dharwad, in Revision (Rent) 84/88 but the same was also dismissed under the impugned judgment dated 6-12-1997.