HAJID HUSSAIN Vs. VIJAYARAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is filed under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code, by the respondent in h. r. c. No. 29 of 1985, on the file of the learned munsiff, raichur, against the order passed in h. r. c. r. p. No. 4 of 1991 by the learned district judge, raichur, confirming the eviction order passed by the trial court.

(2.) FOR the sake of convenience, i shall refer to the parties with regard to their position and status in h. r. c. No. 29 of 1985, on the file of the trial court. Petitioner-vijayaraj filed the eviction petition-h. r. c. No. 29 of 1985 in the trial court seeking for eviction of the respondent-haji d. hussain (original respondent) from the petition schedule house property bearing municipal No. 4-2-32 situate at mangalwarpet, raichur, alleging that he became the owner of the said premises by virtue of a registered sale deed executed in his favour on 8-5-1984 by the previous owners-bibi noor and her son syed mohd. Isaq and after the purchase of the said premises he informed the respondent about it and called upon him to attorn his tenancy in his favour. Since the respondent has not complied with the said demand he issued a legal notice calling upon him to vacate the petition schedule premises since it is required for his personal use and occupation and filed the eviction petition on the ground under Section 21 (1) (h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (for short 'the act' ). The petitioner alleged in the said petition that he requires the petition schedule premises for his personal use and occupation since at present he is residing in a portion of the house situate at mangalwarpet, raichur, which has fallen to the share of his brother and he has no house of his own for his residential accommodation. Respondent resisted the said claim by filing his objections contending that the petitioner has not derived any right, title or interest in respect of the petition schedule premises under the registered sale deed executed in his favour by the power of attorney holder of his vendor and that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and himself. it is also contended by the respondent that syed mohd. Ibrahim jan was the owner of the petition schedule premises and he migrated to pakistan in the year 1948 authorising one gulam mohd; ahamad to collect rents of the petition schedule and other house belonging to him. the said gulam mohd. Ahamad died on 15-10-1951 and since from that date he has not paid the rents of the petition schedule premises to any person. The rent agreed was only Rs. 70/- per month and gulam mohammed was collecting the rents at that rate only during his lifetime. the power of attorney holder-yousuf khan, who executed the sale deed in favour of the petitioner on behalf of Smt. Bibi noor and syed mohammad isaq, was indebted to him and in order to defraud his creditors he sold the petition schedule premises to the petitioner on the basis of power of attorney. Respondent further contended that the petitioner is unmarried and is residing in his own house separately. So he has no real need to occupy the petition premises. He denied the allegation made in the petition that an intimation was given by the petitioner about his intention to purchase the petition schedule premises.

(3.) THE learned munsiff, after recording the evidence adduced by both parties, allowed the eviction petition and held that there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and that the petitioner has made out a case under Section 21 (1) (h) of the act for eviction of the respondent from the petition premises. Against the said Order, respondent filed a revision petition in h. r. c. revision petition No. 4 of 1991 before the learned district judge, raichur, and the same was dismissed confirming the eviction order passed by the trial court. Respondent, therefore, filed the present revision petition.