( 1 ) IN this revision petition under S. 50 (1) of the Karnataka, Rent Control act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1961 Act) the petitioner who was the respondent in H. R. C. No. 3833 of 1975, has challenged the order dated 27-10-1977 of the III Additional Civil Judge, Bangalore City, allowing the application made by the respondent who was the 'petitioner in that case. In the course of my order, I will refer to the parties to the position they occupied in the Court below.

( 2 ) ADMITTEDLY the petitioner is the owner of the first floor of the main house bearing No. 293 situated in Sadavashiva Nagar (Palace Upper Orchards), bangalore City, (hereinafter referred to as the premises) which is the subject matter of dispute between the parties. On 10-11-75, the petitioner instituted a proceeding in the Court of the Munsiff, Bangalore, which came to be later transferred to the Civil Judge by virtue of the amendments made to the 1961 Act by the Karnataka Rent Control (Amendment) Act, 1975 (Karnataka Act No. 31 of 1975) for eviction of the respondent under the provisions of the 1961 Act, who is admittedly in occupation of the premises. In the petition, the petitioner inter-alia averred that the premises had been leased to one S. K. Gandhi who was in occupation of the same for some time and the said S. K. Gandhi vacated the premises inducting the respondent as his sub-lessee without his knowledge and consent. He, has asserted that he objected to the same, but has been receiving the rents from the respondent. Para 3 of the petition containing those allegations that is material reads thus: - "one Mr. S. K. Gandhi approached the petitioner and wanted the premises to be leased to him on a monthly tenancy. The petitioner let out the same to the said Mr, S. K. Gandhi. The said S. K. Gandhi stayed in the premises for some time and was paying rents. He has left Bangalore premanently and his whereabouts are not known. He had inducted the respondent in the premises and the respondent started to pay the rents. The petitioner had not authorised Mr. S. K. Gandhi to sublease. When the petitioner brought this fact to the notice of the respondent and objected to his occupation of the premises, the respondent premised to stay only for a short period and vacate the same. However the respondent has continued to occupy the premises paying a monthly rent of Rs. 400/- The tenancy month is the calendar month

( 3 ) THE petitioner has sought for eviction of the respondent from the premises under the 1961 Act on three grounds viz. , (1) that he requires the premises for his bona-fide use and occupation - (vide Section 21 (1) (h) (2) that S. K. Gandhi had unlawfully sublet the premises to the respondent and the respondent as sub-lessee was liable to be evicted (vide S. 21 (1) (f) and (3) that the respondent has acquired and was in possession of a suitable building in the City of Bangalore (vide S. 2 (1) (p) The respondent resisted the application of the petitioner Among others, the respondent asserted that the application made by the petitioner for non-joinder of S. K. Gandhi was not maintainable. On the merits, the respondent urged that the application is made to secure higher rents and the petitioner was in occupation of several vacant houses and great hardship would be caused to him if he were to be evicted from the premises.

( 4 ) IN support of his case, the petitioner examined himself and closed his case, In his evidence the petitioner who is a retired Deputy commissioner, has stated that he let out the premises to S. K. Gandhi who has inducted the respondent as sub-leasee without his knowledge and consent. In his examination-in-chief, the petitioner has clearly and emphatically assepted that there was no privity of contract between him and the respondent. In his evidence, petitioner has spoken to his case on the grounds, urged in his petition In support of his case, the respondent examined himself and anotner witness one professor I. G. Sharma who is i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document