The central legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of the landlord to seek a decree for possession against the tenants under the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961.

( 1 ) THIS appeal raises an interesting question touching the right of the landlod to seek a decree for possession against his tenant in respect of his premises to which the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act') applies.

( 2 ) IN this judgment, the parties are referred to, by the position assigned to them in the trial court. The facts leading to this appeal are as follows : one Dr. Ali Hussain (hereinafter referred to as the 'owner') was the owner of the premises in question bearing Municipal No. 1392 (new No. 859) situate in masjid Mohalla of Ramanagaram Town. The premises in question will be, hereinafter referred to as the 'suit premises'. It was admittedly covered by the provisions of the Act. Dr. Ali Hussain had two wives. Plaintiffs 1 to 3 are the sons, plaintiffs 4 to 6 are the daughters and plaintiffs 7 and 8 are two wives of Dr. Ali hussain.

( 3 ) THE owner had filed an eviction petition against defendants 1 and 3 in h. R. C. No. 13/1973 on the file of the learned Munsiff, Ramanagaram. In that eviction petition (H. R. C No. 13/1973), he had sought for eviction of defendants 1 and 3 on the ground that defendants-1 was a chronic defaulter in the payment of rent which was Rs. 60/- per month. It was the case of the owner that defen- dant-3 was inducted by defendant-1 as a sub-tenant unauthorisedly. He also sought for eviction of defendants 1 and 3 under Section 21 (1) (h) of the Act for his bona fide use and occupation. During the pendency of H. R. C. No. 13/1973 the owner died. Therefore, in the light of the law as it stood then, the legal representatives of the owner could not presecute the said eviction petition. Hence it came to an end. In the said proceedings, the plaintiffs were brought on record as L. Rs. of Dr. Hussain. Accordingly, the Rent control Court made an order to the effect that the proceedings stood terminated by the death of the original landlord viz. , the owner. Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed the present suit O. S. No. 32/1975 in the court of the Civil Judge, Bangalore district, Bangalore for possession and also for mesne profits against defendants 1 to 4 or such of the defendants who would be found in possession of the suit premises.

( 4 ) THE plaint averments will have to be noticed since the question as to jurisdiction of the civil court to make a decree for possession against defendants 1 and 3 arises in this case.

( 5 ) THE plaintiffs, as L. Rs. of the owner, averred in para 4 of the plaint that the owner had filed the eviction petition h. RC. No. 13/1973 on the file of the munsiff, Ramanagaram, against defendants 1 and 3 praying for a decree for eviction. In the eviction petition it was pleaded inter alia that the 1st defendant had taken the premises on lease on a monthly rental of Rs. 60/- and he had unlawfully sublet the said premises and that he had committed default in the payment of rent. The 1st defendant contended that he was not a tenant of the premises. The 3rd defendant who was the 2nd respondent in the said eviction petition pleaded that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant and he had been put in possession of the premises in pursuance. Of an agreement of sale dated 16-12-1968 alleged to have been executed by the owner in favour of his wife-defendant No 4 in the present suit. In paragraph 6 of the plaint, the plaintiffs averred that the defendant-3 had denied the relationship of landlord and tenant in H. R. C. No. 13/1973 and had set up title in himself and it was because of this, the plaintiffs were advised to file a suit for recovery of possession of the suit premises treating the possession of defendants 1 and 3 as unauthorised and wrongful. On that basis, they also made a claim for mesne profits for the use and occupation of the premises which, according to them, was wrongful and unauthorised. They also denied the agreement alleged to have been executed by the owner in favour of defen- dant-4 who is admittedly the wi