B. N. MALLIKARJUNA, J.

( 1 ) HEARD the learned counsel for both the parties. Perused the papers.

( 2 ) ). These two revisions HRRP Nos. 1814/1996 and 81/1997 arise out of the order dated 30th September, 1996 of the XIII Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Mayo Hall, Bangalore, in H. R. C. No. 10279/1991. Landlady (first petitioner) Girijamma instituted eviction proceedings under Section 21 (1) (h) and (p) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961. This application was opposed by the respondent. Therefore, after contest, by order dated 30-9-1996, eviction under Section 21 (1) (h) was granted and the respondent was directed to vacate and hand over vacant possession of the premises within three months. Eviction under Section 21 (1) (p) was refused. It is, therefore, the tenant has filed HRRP No. 1814/1996 challenging the eviction order under Section 21 (1) (h) and the landlady HRRP No. 81/1997 challenging the order refusing to evict under Section 21 (1) (p) of the Act. This common order dispose of both the revision petitions.

( 3 ) THE undisputed facts are that the leased premises belonged to one Ganapathy, husband of the first petitioner and father of petitioners 2 to 4. He had lea

Click Here to Read the rest of this document