R. V. VASANTHA KUMAR, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision petition is filed against the order dated 22-4-1994 passed in Revision (Rent) Petition No. 332/87, on the question of maintainability of revision petition.

( 2 ) FEW facts to breifly state are:- the parties are described as landlord and tenant. K. Venugopal Rao (Landlord) initiated eviction proceedings against one K. Hithavanthi (tenant) under clauses (a), (b), (c) and (h) of proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereincalled as 'the Act'), the proceedings being numbered as HRC. 100/ 80. After contest, the trial Court granted the reliefs sought for by the landlord under Section 21 (1) (a), (c), and (h) of the Act. Aggrieved against the ordet of eviction, tenant preferred a revision to the Court of the District Judge under Section 50 of the Act and proceedings was numbered as R. (R)P. 332/ 87.

( 3 ) DURING the pendency of the first revision proceedings, original tenant K. Hithavanthi expired and on 13-7-1989 one Smt. Vrishendramani made an application under O. 22, R. 3 of the C. P. C. , seeking permission to come on record as the legal representative of the deceased tenant K. Hithavanthi and to continue the revision petition. The application was numbered as I. A. II. Case was adjourned to 19-9-1989, for Objections of the landlord.

( 4 ) IT is brought to the notice of the Court, that the landlord did not raise any objection for allowing of I. A. II and as such I. A. II was allowed and Smt. Vrishendramani came on record on 19-9-1989. The revision petition was posted to several dates of hearing on 16-7-1993 an application was filed by revision petitioner Vrishendramani under O. 6, R. 17, CPC, for amendment of statement of objections to the effect that the landlord having no subsisting legal interest in the petition schedule property since he has sold the petition schedule property to one Chandrakanth Sanu and as such it was prayed that the landlord's main petition allowed under Section 21 (1) (a), (c) and (h) be dismissed on the ground of non-survival of cause of action. The application was numbered as I. A. III. After contest, I. A. III was allowed on 7-2-1994. It is submitted by the Revision petitioner that the landlord has not challenged the orders passed on I. A. II and as well as on I. A. II. Subsequently, the landlord moved the Court as not to take cognizance of the sale deed in view of rectification deed having come into effect between the parties to evidence the factum that by mistake the petition schedule premises having been mentioned in the deed of sale executed by landlord in favour of Chandrakanth Sanu and what was sold by landlord was a different premises. As against this contention, revision petitioner submits that the aforesaid Chandrakanth P. Sanu has subsequently sold the vary same property, the subject-matter of purchase to another party, the purchaser being T. M. A. Pal Foundation detaining the petition schedule property as the property, the subject-matter of sale.

( 5 ) REVISION petitioner moved the Court, with an application under O. 41, Rule 27, CPC to receive copies of two sale deeds, by way of additional evidence and the application was numbered as I. A. IV and another application was filed under O. 16, R. 1 of CPC. numbered as I. A. VIII for summoning the parties to give evidence in respect of sale transactions. Revision proceedings was adjourned to several dates to consider I. As. VII and VIII. It is at this stage of the proceedings, the landlord changed the Counsel and motion was made to consider the maintainability of the revision petition as Vrishendramani, who was on record, as L. R. of deceased K. Hitavanthi as being not the persons legally entitled to prosecute the revision petition. The first revision Court after hearing both the parties has dismissed the revision petition mainly on the ground that the revision petitioner Smt. Vrishendramani as being not the legal heir of deceased tenant Smt. Hitavanthi and tha

Click Here to Read the rest of this document