ABDUL AZEEZ Vs. SAKAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner faced with eviction order under clause(f) of proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') viz., that he is a sub-lessee, has presented this revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. it will be convenient to refer to the parties in their original character of petitioners and respondents, bearing in mind that petitioners 1 and 2 are respondents 1 and 2 and second respondent is the revision petitioner. First respondent arrayed as third respondent has remained ex-parte throughout. L.Rs. of first respondent have been brought on record as she died during the pendency of this revision petition.

(2.) Fact that second petitioner has become the owner pursuant to a compromise (Ex P-1) entered into in O.S. No. 28 of 1973 on the file of the Civil Judge, Tumkur, is not controverted. Present proceedings have been initiated by petitioners after withdrawal of H.R.C. No. 2 of 1972. As withdrawal of H.R.C. No. 2 of 1972 has no bearing on decisions of issues involved in the present proceedings, there is no necessity to refer to that proceedings in detail.

(3.) Petitioners sought for eviction on two courts viz., (i) respondents have committed default in payment of rents ; and (ii) sub-lease by first respondent in favour of second respondent without consent or authorisation of owners, being contrary to clause (f) of proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Act, they are liable to be evicted. Second respondent resisted the eviction proceedings contending, inter alia, that he has taken the premises on lease in September 1968 from first petitioner and disputed his status as sub-lessee. As petitioners have accepted rents sent by him through Money Orders they have recognised him as their tenant. It is also contended that as he did not accede to demand made for payment of enhanced rents, they have started this proceedings with oblique motive. He contended that as petitioners have declined to accept rents offered, no eviction can be ordered under clause (a).