B.P.SINGH, ARUN KUMAR, JJ. - (1.) THESE two appeals by special leave are directed against the common judgment and order of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore dated July 15, 2003 in H.R.R.P. Nos. 209 and 210 of 2000. By its. aforesaid judgment and order, the High Court dismissed the revision petitions preferred by the appellants/tenants and upheld the order of the 15th Addl. Small Causes Judge, Bangalore dated January 27, 2000 in H.R.C. Nos. 10700-10701 of 1991 thereby affirming the order of eviction on the ground of bona fide need of the respondent/landlord.
(2.) IT is necessary to recapitulate the facts of the case. According to the appellants, the property in question, of which the rented premises form part, was owned by the Bangalore Mahanagar Palike, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Corporation') which had leased out the building to one Mr. Dhanpal for a period of ten years. In O.S. No. 436 of 1964 on the file of the Munsif s Court, Civil Station, Bangalore, a decree had been passed in favour of Shri Dhanapal directing the vendors to execute the re-conveyance deed in favour of Shri Dhanapal and to deliver all the documents in their, possession. IT also appears from the deed of sale executed on 9th June, 1967 by the Munsif, Civil Station Bangalore, on behalf of the aforesaid vendors Smt. Lakshamma and others, that Shri Dhanapal had assigned the decree in favour of Shri Doraiswamy. The sale deed which was executed by the Court on behalf of the judgment debtor and in favour of Doraiswamy narrates the following: "Now this indenture of sale witnesseth that in pursuance of the Decree in OS No. 436 of 1965 and Ex. No. 425 of 1966 on the file of the Munsif, Civil Station, Bangalore, the Vendors 1 and 2 by the Munsif, Civil Station, Bangalore, both hereby grant and sell and transfer, convey and assign- unto the use of the said purchaser, free from encumbrance of the schedule property to have and to hold the same with absolute liberty to own, occupy, use, transfer, deal with and to dispose of the said schedule property in any manner whatsoever the said purchaser desires." On a reading of the sale deed executed by the Court, it appears that the vendors therein claimed absolute ownership of the land and structures and building thereon, and the same was conveyed to the assignee, namely, Doraiswamy, the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent. The said Mr. V. Doraiswamy filed a suit for the eviction of the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 3503 of 2004 under Section 21(l)(a) and (h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act which was allowed only under Section 21 (l)(a) and the tenant was given one month time to pay the arrears of rent. The order was made on February 22, 1983.
(3.) PURSUANT to Doraiswamy purchasing the property in question in execution proceeding, the Corporation initially entered the name of Mr. V. Doraiswamy alongwith Mr. Dhanapal in its record, but later realizing its mistake deleted his name by order dated June 16, 1986. This was challenged by Doraiswamy who filed a suit being O.S. No. 10815 of 1996 for a declaration and for cancellation of the order deleting his name. The suit filed on October 10, 1986 was ultimately dismissed on January 31,1989 holding that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction in view of the fact that the plaintiff was not the owner of the property which was really a public premises. Against the dismissal of his suit Doraiswamy preferred Regular First Appeal No. 305 of 1989 before the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore. The said Regular First Appeal was dismissed for non prosecution on February 27, 2001 and, thereafter, a petition for restoration was also dismissed for non-prosecution on January 10, 2002. While the aforesaid Regular First Appeal was pending in the High Court, Doraiswamy claiming to be the landlord, filed applications for eviction of the appellants herein under various provisions of the Karnataka Rent Control Act including Section 21(1)(h) thereof. The said applications were numbered as H.R.C. Nos. 10700-100701 of 1991. During the pendency of the said suit Doraiswamy died. In terms of the Will executed by him, his daughter, the respondent herein, was brought on record as his legal representative.;