- (1.) LEAVE granted. The appellant is the landlord of certain premises. He had filed two suits for eviction of the respondents, being H.R.Cs. Nos. 509 and 508 of 1998, before the Rent Controller under the provisions of S. 21 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961. The Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the defence taken by the respondents, namely, that they were mortgagees of the premises was not established. Nevertheless, it was of the view that the claim for eviction could not be permitted because there had been no proof of attornment of the tenancies in favour of the appellant by the previous owner/landlord, one D. Rama Rao.
(2.) THE appellant preferred a revisional application under S. 50 of the Act before the High Court. The High Court disposed of both the applications arising from the common judgment of the Rent Controller by an order dtd. 19/10/20011. The High Court was of the view that there was proof of attornment of the tenancies. It also came to the conclusion that the appellant had been able to establish the claim for eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent under S. 21(1)(a) of the Act and had also proved bona fide requirement under S. 21(1)(h) as far as H.R.Cs. Nos. 508 and 509 of 1998 were concerned. The finding of the Rent Controller that the mortgage had not been proved by the respondents was upheld. The respondents were held to be tenants of the premises and were directed to vacate the premises within a month. An application was made by the respondents before the High Court for review of the order dtd. 19/10/2001l. In the application for review the only ground taken was that there was an agreement for sale dtd. 19/8/1996 executed by the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant which "clearly established that the mortgage amount was adjusted towards total consideration payable by the appellant to his predecessor entitled (sic)". It has been stated therein: "Unfortunately the original of the said agreement was with the respondent (which is customary) and xeroxed signed copy of the same was with the predecessor-in-title of the respondent. Anyway, the petitioner was not in custody of the same. Now, since in spite of due diligence the petitioner could not produce the same either in the trial court or before this Hon'ble Court is annexing the same to this review petition."
(3.) ON the basis of this agreement dated 19/8/1996 the entire decision taken on 19/10/2001 was reviewed by the High Court. The question as to whether there was a mortgage, was again gone into but negatived. It was again held that the respondents were tenants of the premises. However, the Court came to the conclusion that the agreement sought to be introduced by way of review by the respondents evidenced that the appellant was liable to pay an amount of rupees one lakh to the respondents. Therefore, the finding of default earlier taken in H.R.C. No. 509 of 1998 was rejected as also the grounds of bona fide requirement. As far as H.R.C. No. 508 of 1998 was concerned, the claim for eviction on the ground of default was rejected but the ground of bona fide requirement was reaffirmed. However, the claim for eviction under S. 2l(i)(h) of the Act was allowed conditionally upon the appellant refunding a sum of rupees one lakh to the respondents before executing the eviction order.;