The legal representatives of a deceased tenant have a right to contest an eviction petition and prosecute a revision petition under the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961.

( 1 ) THIS Civil Revision Petition, filed under Section 50 (1) of the Karnataka rent Control Act, 1961, (hereinafter re ferred to as the 'karnataka Act'), has come up for disposal, before this Court, in view of the order of reference made by the learned Single Judge of this Court, on 18th November 1982. The order of reference states that the question for consideration is whether the legal representatives of the deceased tenant, in the case of a non-residential premises, have a right to prosecute the proceeding ? further since other cases involving the same question had been already referred to the Division Bench, reference in this case became necessary.

( 2 ) THE schedule premises is a nonresidential one. One K. Abdul Subhan was running his business in glass ware. The owner of the property appears to have bequeathed the property in favour of one Muddaveerappa, whose younger brother is one Chikkavee, appa. As muddaveerappa is an insane person, Chikkaveerappa acted as his guardian. Chikkaveerappa sold this property to the respondent A. K. Sathyanarayana Setty, after obtaining premission of the District judge, Bangalore, in Miscellaneous Case no. 33 of 1971, in view of the provisions of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship act. Respondent filed Original Suit Number 2387 of 1974 against Sri Subhan for recovery of rent. That was decreed on 27-11-1977. Regular Appeal Number 16 of 1978 was filed by Sri Subhan as against the said decree. That was disposed of on 5-12-1980, as per the certified copy of the judgement produced by Sri S. P. Shankar, learned counsel for the petitioners, for our perusal. One of the contentions raised by Sri Subhan was that Chikkaveerappa had no right to alienate the property and therefore the respondent had not become the owner of the property, and as such there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between them. The trial court raised the following two issues "1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is entitled to recover the suit amount from defendant as arrears of rent as prayed for ? 2. Do the defendants prove that they ace not tenants of the suit property under the plaintiff?" issue Number 1 was held in the affirmative and issue No. was held in the negative. In Regular Appeal Number 16 of 1978, the appellate court framed the fallowing point also for consideration. "whether the plaintiff has proved the ' relationship df landlord and tenant in respect Of the schedule property between himself and the defendant ? The appellate court recorded an affirmative finding on this question. The respondent filed an eviction petition invoking clauses (a), (h) and (J) of the proviso to Section 21 (1) of the Karnataka act against Sri Abdul Subhan, in H. R. C. No. 991 of 19'75. He contended, in short, that he is running a wholesale business in pulses in a rented premises in mamulpet where the suit schedule property also is situated, that premises is inadequate for him to run and expand his business and because of that reason he purchased the schedule premises to demolish and reconstruct it and start his business in the premises so reconstructed. He has- made it clear in his petition that he required the schedule premises reasonably and bonafide for the immediate purpose of erecting a new building in the place of the existing building' and further the same is reasonably and bonafide required for his own occupation. We consider it appropriate to reproduce at this stage, what he has, in this behalf, averred in his petition. "4. The petition schedule premises are reasonably and bonafide required by the petitioner for the immediate purpose of erecting a new building in the place of, the existing building and the petitioner reasonably and bonafide requires the premises for the occupation of himself. . . " he has further on in para 6 of his petition, averred as follows. . . the petitioner bonafide requires the premises for the immediate purpose of electing a new building by demolishing the existing building and that petitio

Click Here to Read the rest of this document