CHIKKAMUNCHAIH Vs. H HONNALAGAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HRRP No. 220/2007 is filed by the petitioner against the order passed by the Small Cause Court under Section 45 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1989 (for short hereinafter referred to as the 'act'), whereas hrrp No. , 297/2007 is filed against the final order passed under Section 27 (2) (a) and (r)of the Act directing the eviction of the petitioner from the petition scheduled property. Therefore, they are taken up for consideration together and disposed of by this common order.

(2.) FOR the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the original HRC No. 611/2004.

(3.) THE subject-mattef of this eviction proceedings is a residential premises bearing No. 96/115 situate at Bhuvaneshwari Colony, hoyasala Road. Ward No. 52, hanmanthanagar, Bangalore 90. The case of the petitioner is that he is the absolute owner in peaceful possession of the scheduled property which was allotted to him by the Bangalore City Corporation on 19-11-1991. Thereafter, he put up a residential construction and let out the scheduled premises to the respondent on a monthly rent of Rs. 200/ -. The respondent was not in the habit of paying the rents regularly and that he became a defaulter in payment of rents from July 1992 till March 1994, Therefore, the petitioner was constrained to issue a notice demanding the arrears of rent and vacation of the premises. In reply to the same, on 18-5-1994 the respondent admitted the tenancy and contended that the rent is only Rs. 100/- and that he had paid rs. 10,000/- as advance and that he is residing in the premises for the last 17 years. Thereafter, the respondent filed a suit in OS. No. 4133/1996 on the file of the City Civil Judge. Bangalore for a decree of permanent injunction contending that he has purchased the suit schedule property from the petitioner for a consideration of Rs. 30,000/- and that he is in possession of the property since 1976 and as such he is the absolute owner. The petitioner contested the suit. Ultimately, after the trial it came to be dismissed on 3-11-2003. There after, the petitioner got issued one more notice on 12-4-2004 terminating the tenancy of the respondent and demanded to pay a sum of Rs. 33,800/- being the arrears of rent till such time. The said notice was replied on 13-5-2004. Thereafter, the petitioner sought for eviction on the ground of arrears of rent. It is also stated in ,the original petition that the premises is required for the personal use and occupation of the petitioner and his family members and that he is residing in a rented premises. Further it is stated that if the petition is allowed the respondent will not be prejudiced in any manner, on the contrary, if the petition is not allowed, the petitioner will be put to untold hardship, irreparable loss, injury and hardship. Therefore, the petitioner had sought for eviction of the respondent from the petition schedule premises both on the ground of arrears of rent as well as self-occupation. The said petition was accompanied by an affidavit.