V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.

( 1 ) ALL these three revision petitions pertain to the same property bearing No. 24/37, Surveyor Street, Basavanagudi, Bangalore, which is the petition schedule premises. Since the parties are also common, these three revision petitions were heard together and disposed of by this common order.

( 2 ) THE petitioner-P. V. Ramadas in H. R. R. P. No. 184 of 2000 is the tenant and deceased K. Seshadri Iyengar, represented by Ms legal heirs, who are petitioners in H. R. R. P. Nos. 118 and 230 of 2000 is the landlord. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as 'landlord and tenant'.

( 3 ) THE landlord filed petition under Section 21 (1) of the Karnataka rent Control Act, 1961 (now repealed, hereinafter called as the 'act') seeking eviction of the tenant under clause (a) on the ground that he is in arrears of rent; under clause (d) on the ground that the tenant is causing nuisance; and under clause (h) on the ground that the landlord require the petition schedule premises for their bona fide use and occupation. According to the landlord, the monthly rent is Rs. 3,000/- but the according to the tenant it is Rs. 1,500/ -. The tenant resisted the petition denying the case of the landlord. After trial, the Trial Court by its order dated 13-1-2000 allowed the petition under Section 21 (1) (d) of the Act and rejected the eviction under clauses (a) and (h) granted four months time to the tenant to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the premises. Being aggrieved by the same, the landlord has filed H. R. R. P. No. 230 of 2000 insofar as dismissal of eviction petition under Section 21 (l) (a) and (h) of the Act. At the same time, the tenant filed H. R. R. P. No. 184 of 2000 against the order allowing the eviction petition under section 21 (l) (d) of the Act.

( 4 ) WHILE the eviction petition was pending, the tenant approached the Rent and Accommodation Controller seeking fixation of fair rent to the schedule premises. By an order dated 11-1-2000 the rent of the premises was fixed at Rs. 2,000/ -. Aggrieved by the same, the landlord has filed H. R. R. P. No. 118 of 2000.

( 5 ) SO far as H. R. R. P. No. 118 of 2000 fixing rent for the schedule premises is concerned, the order is passed under Section 14 of the Act. Section 14 of the Act has been struck down by this Court holding that the same is unconstitutional. As a result of which, there was no power for the Rent and Accommodation Controller to exercise for fixing the rent. The order passed by him is non est in the eye of law. Therefore, nothing survive for consideration in the revision petition. Consequently, h. R. R. P. No. 118 of 2000 is dismissed as wholly unnecessary.

( 6 ) AS far as the quantum of rent is concerned, the Trial Court determined the rent at Rs. 3,000/- per month in respect of the schedule premises and the same was questioned by the tenant in H. R. R. P. No, 254 of 1998. This Court by its order dated 5-3-1998 rejected the said revision petition. Thus, the rent determined at Rs. 3,000/- by the Trial court is conclusive.

( 7 ) INSOFAR as the other two revision petitions pertaining to eviction order are concerned, learned Counsel for the landlord fairly submitted that if the eviction order passed under Section 21 (1) (d) is confirmed, he will not press H. R. R. P. No. 230 of 2000. In view of this submission, this court proceeds to consider the correctness of the order of eviction passed under Section 21 (l) (d) of the Act.

( 8 ) LEARNED Counsel for the tenant contended that there is no sufficient pleading and legal evidence regarding nuisance. According to him, the findings of the Trial Court iri this regard are contrary to the decisions in Rafat Ali v Sugni Bai, Gopal Vaman v Krishnaji Tatyarao and joseph D'souza v State of Mysore, for the proposition that the burden to prove the nuisance alleged is on the landlord. The Counsel contends that the said burden is not discharged by the landlord. Hence, the learned counsel for the tenant see

Click Here to Read the rest of this document