N KAMALAMMA Vs. H S SUBBANARASIMHA SASTRY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the concurrent findings of the Courts below rejecting her application filed under Section 21(1), (a), (h), (f) and (j) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as 'the 1961 Act' for short), confirmed in Rent Revision 16/1985 by the District Judge, Tumkur.

(2.) The facts relevant for the purpose of this revision are as under: The petitioner herein filed a petition under Section 21(a), (h), (f) and (j) of the Act of 1961 before the Trial Court seeking eviction of the respondent herein and to grant the vacant possession of the petition premises bearing Khatha No.2004/1981, Door No.65, Ravi Talkies Road, K.R. Extension, Madhugiri Town, Madhugiri, Tumkur District, described in the schedule to the petition. The petition premises belong to Sri K.G. Venkataramana Setty who died on 20.11.1980 without any issues and leaving behind the petitioner, his sister, as his only heir, as his wife had predeceased him. It is averred that the petition premises was let to the respondent on a monthly rental of Rs.150/- in the year 1979. The respondent had not paid the rent of the premises from 1.11.1979 prior to the death of the brother of the petitioner deceased Sri KG. Venkataramana Setty and even subsequent to his death. Thereby, the petitioner issued a notice dated 28.03.1981 to the respondent by Registered Post and it returned with an endorsement as 'addressee refused'. The petitioner had also sent a notice under certificate of posting and the respondent did not comply the said notice nor replied the same. The petitioner alleged that the respondent is due in a sum of Rs.2,850/-, the arrears of rent upto the end of 30.05.1981 and thereby, sought eviction on the grounds under Section 21(1), (a), (h), (f) and (j) of the 1961 Act. The petition premises was said to be in dilapidated condition. There were large cracks developed in the building and a portion of the premises had collapsed and the remaining portion was in a dangerous condition and therefore, the petitioner intended to demolish the premises and to put up the construction in the place of the dilapidated premises, to suit her requirements and to house her grand son, who was practicing as an Advocate at Madhugiri. It is also averred that the respondent had sublet the portions of the premises to different other persons to enrich himself by taking more rent and the petitioner also sought the possession of the premises even on this ground as well. It is also averred that the respondent had made alterations without the permission from the local authority and the petitioner and on these grounds, sought for eviction from the petition premises. The respondent who appeared before the Trial Court filed his objections statement admitting the fact that the petition premises was owned by Sri K.G, Venkataramana Setty and that he died in the year 1980. He did not admit the averments that the petitioner is the legal heir of the deceased. He denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and himself and all other averments with regard to the rental of the premises, the arrears due and the demand made. It is his specific case that he had agreed to purchase the petition premises from the deceased Sri K.G. Venkataramana Setty, who had agreed to sell the same and that major portion of the sale consideration was paid to him. He also asserts that the deceased had executed a Will dated 5.8.1979 while he was in sound and disposing state of mind and in the said Will, he had admitted the receipt of the consideration and the respondent also claimed that the said Will was attested by the witnesses in the presence of the deceased and the attestors. As per the terms of the Will, the balance consideration of Rs. 15,000/- was due and that an amount of Rs.5,000/- was to be spent for the obsequies of the deceased after his death and the remaining Rs. 10,000/- was to be paid to the petitioner, who had to execute a sale deed in favour of the respondent. In the circumstances, the respondent averred that the petitioner is entitled to a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as per the Will executed which has been registered and in the circumstances, it was his contention that the petition was not maintainable in law.

(3.) During the enquiry, the petitioner was examined as PW. 1 and three witnesses were examined on his behalf and the documents Exs.P.l to P. 13 were marked, while the respondent examined himself and five other witnesses and the document Ex.D.l was marked in evidence. The Trial Court on appreciation of the material on record, after hearing the parties rejected the petition holding that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner approached the District Judge in RR 16/1985 and the said revision petition was dismissed on merits confirming the finding of the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the Courts below, the petitioner approached this Court in revision.