P. VISHWANATHA SHETTY, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioners, in this petition, are the landlords and were the petitioners before the trial court. The respondents, in this petition, are the tenants and were the respondents before the trial court. The parties to this petition, in the course of this Order, will be referred to as "the landlords" and "the tenants".

( 2 ) FACTS that may have bearing for the disposal of this petition, may briefly be stated as hereunder: (A) the petition schedule premises consist of land measuring 1 acre 10 guntas in r. s. No. 87 and land measuring 1 acre 14 guntas in r. s. No. 93, bearing c. t. s. nos. 146 to 153, situated in ward No. 111, neeligin road, hubli (hereinafter referred to as "the petition schedule premises" ). By means of a registered lease deed dated 1st of march, 1905, one gurappa bin channabasappa belagavi, minor represented by his guardian and mothers one Smt. Dundawa, dodda irapawa and sarma irapawa through their power of attorney one shivamurteppa, leased out the petition schedule premises to one anant parashuram nagaonkar by means of registered lease deed dated 1st of march, 1905 for a period of 99 years on an annual rent of rs, 325/ -. The lease deed has been produced as Annexure-p19. The lease deed provided that the petition schedule premises was leased for the purpose of utilising it for pressing and ginning factory. On 10th of december, 1907, the original lessee ;, the aforesaid anant parashuram nagaonkar, disposed of all his leasehold interest and rights in the petition schedule premises in favour of one ramadas vittaldas darbar by receiving the sale consideration of Rs. 8,500/ -. Thus, the said ramdas vittaldas darbar stepped into the shoes of the original lessee the aforesaid anant parashuram nagaonkar and became the lessee of the petition schedule premises. The landlords in this petition are the successors-in-interest of the original landlord the aforesaid gurappa channabasappa belagavi and the tenants in this petition are the successors-in-interest of the aforesaid ramdas vittaldas darbar. (B) the landlords instituted proceedings for eviction of the tenants from the petition schedule premises in hrc No. 140 of 1986, on the file of hie court of principal munsiff at hubli, seeking eviction of the tenants under Section 21 (l) (h) and (p) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the act"), contending, inter alia, that the landlords require the petition schedule premises reasonably and bona fide for the purpose of their business i. e. , for the purpose of starting cotton pressing and ginning factory and also on the ground that the tenants having secured a suitable alternate premises, they are liable to be evicted both under Section 21 (l) (h) and (p) of the act. It is their further case that if an order of eviction is not passed, they will be put to greater hardship than the tenants. (C) the tenants resisted the claim of the landlords, inter alia, contending that the lease of the petition schedule premises being a permanent lease, they are entitled to continue to be in possession of the petition schedule premises for ever and for an indefinite period and as such, the eviction petition filed by the landlords was not maintainable under Section 21 of the act. They also contended that the claim made by the landlords is neither reasonable nor bona fide; and if an order of eviction is passed, they will be put to greater hardship than the landlords. It is their further case that they are not liable to be evicted under Section 21 (l) (p) of the act as the premises, which is stated to have been acquired by them as claimed by the landlords, was with them even brfore acquiring the leasehold interest in the petition schedule premises. (D) the learned munsiff, on consideration of the evidence on record and various terms provided in the lease deed exhibit p-19, took the view that the lease of the petition schedule premises was a term lease for a period of 99 years with a clau

Click Here to Read the rest of this document