Judgment :-

R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.

Leave granted. Heard the parties.

2. The respondent claiming to be the owner of the suit premises filed an eviction petition (HRC 1247/1998) against the first appellant under section 21(1) proviso (a) and (h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (`Old Act, for short). She alleged that the previous owner Anthony Swamy, sold the suit premises to her under a registered sale deed dated 25.9.1997.

3. The first appellant resisted the eviction petition contending that he was not the tenant of the premises under the respondent. He alleged that he was earlier the tenant of the suit premises from the year 1988, under Anthony Swamy; that the said Anthony Swamy had entered into an agreement of sale dated 11.6.1997 in his favour agreeing to sell the suit property for a consideration of Rs.1,05,000/-; and that under the said agreement, Anthony Swamy confirmed having received Rs.75,000/-as advance and permitted him (the first appellant) to continue in possession free of rent in part performance of the agreement of sale. He contended that from that date, he has been in possession not as a tenant but as a purchaser in part performance of the agreement of sale and has not therefore paid any rent in regard to the premises. The first appellant also filed a suit for specific performance in OS No.2089/1999 on the file of the City Civil Court, Bangalore, against the said Anthony Swamy and the purchaser (respondent). The said suit is still pending.

4. The trial court allowed the eviction petition by order dated 30.6.2001 holding that the first appellant was the tenant under the respondent and that the respondent had established that she bonafide and reasonably required the suit premises. The said order was challenged by the first appellant by filing a revision before the High Court. The High Court, by its order dated 18.10.2001, allowed the revision petition. The High Court affirmed the trial courts finding that the relationship of landlord and tenant was established between the respondent and first appellant, but held that the ground of eviction alleged, was not established.

5. Feeling aggrieved by the finding that there was a relationship of landlord and tenant between the respondent and himself, the first appellant approached this Court in SLP (C) No. 8245/2002. This Court by order dated 29.4.2002 dismissed the special leave petition but, however, clarified that the finding arrived at by the High Court (about the relationship of landlord and tenant) shall be confined to the said proceedings for eviction and that the suit for specific performance filed by the appellant shall be decided on merits on the basis of the pleadings therein and the evidence adduced.

6. Thereafter, the respondent filed a second petition for eviction in HRC No.157/2002, against the first appellant and his wife (second appellant) under Section 27(2)(r) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 (`new Act, for short). The first appellant resisted the said petition also, on the ground that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between respondent and appellants. The trial court disposed of the said petition by order dated 13.7.2006. It held that having regard to the denial of relationship of landlord and tenant by the appellants, in the absence or any lease deed or acknowledgement of tenancy or receipt in regard to payment of rent, the dispute relating to relationship required to be settled by the Civil Court. It therefore deferred the eviction proceedings till the disposal of OS NO.2089 of 1999 filed by the first respondent for specific performance. The said order was challenged by the respondent in HRRP No. 463 of 2006. The High Court, by the impugned order dated 28.5.2008, allowed the petition, set aside the order of the trial court and granted eviction subject to the decision in the suit for specific performance. The said order is challenged in this appeal by special leave.

7. It is not disputed that the first appellant had filed a suit for