The court emphasized the importance of determining the nature of the tenancy and the bona fide and reasonable need of the landlords in eviction cases, and recognized the right of the respondents to raise a bona fide and complicated plea disputing the title of the petitioners.

( 1 ) THESE two revision petitions were referred for consideration by the Division Bench and accordingly they have come up before us for hearing.

( 2 ) SINCE common questions of law and facts are involved, they are heard together and disposed of by the following order.

( 3 ) THE parties are same in both the petitions. Petitioners claim to be the owners, sought eviction of the respondents-tenants under various sub-clauses of S. 21 (1) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 ('the Act') alleging that the respondents were the lessees. The petitioners claim to be the descendants of one Lachiramsing, whose grandfather was Parwatsing. The premises were bits of open land in the year 1849 and were granted on lease by Lachiramsing in favour of one Mohamad Gori Soudagar under a registered lease deed (Ex. P. 1 ). According to the petitioners the lease was for a period of 20 years and thereafter the tenant had to continue as a lessee under the lessor and the lessor was entitled to seek possession at any time. It is further averred by the petitioners that the lessee was permitted to put up shop buildings on a consolidated rent of Rs. 50/for the lease period of 20 years and after the expiry of the period of 20 years, the agreed rent was stated to be Rs. 4/- per year per shop. Accordingly the original lessee continued as tenant. The successors-in-interest of the original lessee are in possession as ordinary tenants and they are the respondents here. Accordingly eviction has been sought against them. It is further stated by the petitioners that the original lessor Lachiramsing had a younger brother called Fakirsing, who had two sons Bhawansingh and Chattusing. Bhawansing had a son called 'lachiram' and he died issueless. Petitioners 1 to 3 are the children of Chattusing.

( 4 ) THE respondents contested the claim of the petitioners on several grounds. The first respondent and respondents 2 and 3 filed separate objections. Most of the grounds urged by them were common. It may be summarised as follows : - the respondents disputed the right of the petitioners to seek possession as landlords. They asserted that neither the petitioners nor their predecessors-in-interest recovered any rent from the respondents for the last more than 70 years (The eviction petition is of the year 1969 and the objections also must have been filed immediately thereafter ). Respondents pointed out that the right of the petitioners, if any, stood extinguished by lapse of time to recover the rent. Permanent structures have been put up on the original lease-hold. Respondents also question the relationship of the petitioners to the original lessor Lachiramsing. They pointed out that on the expiry of the alleged lease period no steps were taken to obtain possession of the premises and therefore the title of the lessor was lost by adverse possession and prescription. It is also averred that there were several transfers by the original lessee or his successors and the transferees continued to be in possession as bona fide purchasers for value, without notice of any claim of the petitioners. It was specifically averred by the respondents that the refusal to pay rent after the determination of the alleged lease period amounts to disowning the title of the lessor; since more than 12 years have elapsed from such refusal, the rights of the petitioners and their alleged predecessors were extinguished long back. It was further stated by them that the proceedings involve complicated questions of law and fact and as the respondents deny the petitioners' rights, if any, to file the petition, the petition may be either rejected or the petitioners may be directed to get their title decided in a competent civil court. Respondents also contended in the alternative that they were permanent tenants on annual rent and therefore they cannot be evicted at all. They also denied the existence of any grounds under S. 21 (1) of the Act, pleaded in the eviction petition.

( 5 ) I