(1.) THE petitioner-tenant calls in question the validity and correctness of the order dated 6th February, 2003 passed by the XII Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore in H. R. C. No. 1612 of 1997 allowing the eviction petition and directing the petitioner-tenant to vacate the petition premises.
(2.) THE respondent-landlord filed the petition pleading requirement of the premises for her own use. The petitioner was originally the tenant under the father of the landlord B. Shankaraiah. The petition premises was bequeathed by the said Shankaraiah in favour of the respondent. After the death of Shankaraiah the respondent became the owner of the premises by virtue of the Will executed by her father. In the eviction petition presented by her, it was pleaded that she was residing along with her husband and children in a rented premises by paying a rent of Rs. 3,080/- per month and that she has no other immovable property other than the petition premises and, therefore, she requires the premises for her own use and occupation and for the use and occupation of her family members.
(3.) DURING the pendency of the proceedings in the Court below the petitioner-tenant filed LA. No. 5 under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act read with Section 151 of the CPC praying that the Will be rejected because the respondent-landlord had not obtained a succession certificate in pursuance of the Will. The said LA. was rejected by the Court below. The petitioner challenged the said order rejecting the LA. No. 5, in H. R. R. P. No. 564 of 1999. This Court having dismissed the said revision petition, the Court below proceeded with the eviction proceedings treating the respondent as the landlord of the petition premises and passed the impugned order. The order passed by this Court in H. R. R. P. No. 564 of 1999 having become final, the question of existence of jural relationship of landlord and tenant has become a foregone conclusion and cannot be urged again by the petitioner in the present revision.