- (1.) This appeal is by the landlord challenging the judgment of the High court of Karnataka in Civil Revision Petition No. 2051 of 1976, whereby the High court, reversing the findings of the trial court, allowed the tenant's appeal and rejected the landlord's prayer for ejectment. The trial court found that the tenant was liable to be ejected on the ground mentioned in Section 21 (l) (c) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961. Section 21 (l) (c) reads: "21.Protection of tenants against eviction.- (1 Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract, no order or decree for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made by any court or other authority in favour of the landlord against the tenant: Provided that the court may on an application made to it, make an order for the recovery of possession of a premises on one or more of the following grounds only, namely:- (A). . (b). . (c) that the tenant has without the landlord's consent given in writing, erected on the premises any permanent structure. "
(2.) The landlord had pleaded that various structures of a permanent nature had been erected by the tenant without her consent. The trial court, taking into account the totality of the pleadings and evidence, held that the structures alleged to have been erected by the landlord were constructed subsequent to the date on which the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 came into force; the structures were of a permanent character, and the landlord had, at no time, given her consent to the erection of any one of the structures mentioned by her. The petition for eviction contains in paragraph 2 details of the structures allegedlymade by the tenant without the landlord's consent and subsequent to the coming into force of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961. Paragraph 2 of the eviction petition reads: "The Respondent has without the consent of the petitioner erected on the premises the following permanent structures: (I) Sitting room door closed by a wall leading to the left bedroom. (Ii) Left bedroom window which was facing the dining room is replaced by built-in cupboard (work under progress at the time of inspection). (Iii) Pantry room extended. (Iv) Middle bathroom commode removed and other work was under progress at the time of inspection. (V) Two rooms constructed in open verandah stairs leading to first floor. (Vi) One godown constructed next to garage. (Vii) Water tanks constructed in the back yard. (Viii) Door closed leading to terrace in upstairs dining room. (Ix) In the first floor bathroom commode removed and underground system installed. (X) The front compound wall is being raised and the work is now in progress. "
(3.) The details of the structures stated by the landlord in paragraph 2 clearly and undoubtedly speak for themselves. The nature of the various structures admittedly made by the tenant shows that they are of a permanent character. The question then is whether the landlord had given her consent in writing. There is no plea or evidence to the effect that the landlord had either in writing or by conduct ever consented to the construction of the various structures. From the totality of the pleadings and evidence as well as the notice preceding the suit, the learned trial Judge came to the conclusion that all the structures had been erected subsequent to the date on which the Act came into force. The trial court accepted without question the allegations of the landlord with respect to Section 21 (1) (c) of the Act.;