( 1 ) THE correctness and the legality of the order passed by the court-below dismissing IA No. 9 filed by the petitioner for stopping of all further proceedings in HRC 1068/2000 is being challenged in this revision by the petitioner-tenant.

( 2 ) THE respondents herein filed HRC 1068/2000 against the petitioner-tenant in the II Addl Small Causes Judge, Bangalore under Sec 21 (1) (a) and (h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the repealed Act) seeking an order of eviction against the petitioner. The petitioner filed his statement of objections denying the relationship of landlord and tenant between him and the respondents. It was stated by him in the statement of objections that he was a tenant under one Mirza Askar Ali and after his death as many persons claimed to be his legal representatives he was constrained to file HRC 1471/98 and deposited rents in those proceedings The present eviction proceedings is filed by the respondents claiming to be the owners of the petition premises having purchased the same from the legal representatives of the deceased Mirza Asker Ali The petitioner relies heavily upon the order passed in HRC 1471/98 whereunder the court passed the final order directing the petitioner to deposit the rents payable by him with regard to the schedule premises till the title of the respondents to the property is adjudicated upon in accordance with law The petitioner filed I A No 9 in the court-below in H R C 1068/2000 stating that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between himself and the respondents because there is no declaration from any competent court to the effect that the vendors of the respondents are the legal representatives of the deceased Mirza Asker Ali and, therefore, so long such a declaration is not forthcoming the sale by the vendors of the present respondents would not bestow on the respondents any right title or interest and hence the eviction proceedings filed by the respondents cannot be adjudicated upon in a HRC proceedings as the very existence of relationship of landlord and tenant is absent. The court-below dismissed the said I A No 9 as an attempt made by the petitioner to protract the proceedings.

( 3 ) I have heard learned counsel Mr K. K Vasanth for the petitioner and learned Counsel Mr Udaya Holla for the respondents.

( 4 ) THE question that arises for my consideration in the present revision is, whether the petitioner could be permitted to raise the plea of absence of relationship of landlord and tenant in the proceedings brought by the respondents herein for his eviction.

( 5 ) DURING the pendency of the HRC proceedings Act 34 of 2001 was enacted repealing the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 and in its place introduced the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 (hereinafter called the present Act) for regulation of the rent and eviction of tenants and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto Sec 43 of the present Act provides how a dispute as to relationship of landlord and tenant has to be dealt with by the court The said provision reads 43 Dispute of relationship of landlord and tenant - (1) Where in any proceeding before the Court, a contention is raised denying the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant as between the parties it shall be lawful for the court to accept the document of lease or where there is no document of lease, a receipt of acknowledgment of payment of rent purported to be signed by the landlord as prima-facie evidence of relationship and proceed to hear the case (2) Where. (a) the lease pleaded is oral and either party denies relationship, and no receipt or acknowledgement of payment of rent as referred to in sub-section (1) above is produced, or (b) in the opinion of the Court there is reason to suspect the genuine existence of the document of lease or the receipt or acknowledgment of payment of rent. the Court shall at once stop all further proceedings before it and direct the parties to approach a c

Click Here to Read the rest of this document