A. V. SRINIVASA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner-landlord aggrieved by the order passed by the Chief judge of Small Causes, Bangalore dismissing the petition filed by her in h. R. C. No. 2472 of 1990 under Section 21 (1) (h) of the Karnataka Rent control Act, 1961 ('the repealed Act' for short), has presented the present revision petition.

( 2 ) THE petitioner is the absolute owner of the schedule premises which was given to the husband of the respondent-tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,200/- per month. After the death of the husband, the respondent-tenant continued in possession as tenant. The petitioner filed the petition under Section 21 (1) (h) of the repealed Act stating that the schedule premises is required by her for the use and occupation of her only daughter Ms. Rashmi, The respondent resisted the petition stating that her son along with his wife and children have gone abroad and are likely to return to India shortly. She also alleged that the petitioner has rented out the first and second floor portions of the same premises to companies for non-residential purpose. She has denied the claim of the petitioner that she requires the schedule premises for the use and occupation of her daughter. The Court below found that the petitioner failed to establish the requirement as pleaded by her and, accordingly, dismissed the petition. The order dismissing the eviction petition is impugned in this revision petition by the petitioner.

( 3 ) I have heard the learned Counsels on both sides.

( 4 ) IN these proceedings the petitioner-landlord filed I. A. Nos. 1 to 3 of 2002. I. A. No. 1 was filed seeking appointment of a Commissioner; I. A. No. 2 was filed to restrain the respondent from sub-letting or underletting the whole or part of the schedule premises and I. A No. 3 was filed to restrain the respondent from making any structural changes to the petition schedule premises. These I. As were taken up for consideration on 31-10-2002 and I. A. No. 1 was allowed and Mr. Anil S. Katti was appointed as the Court Commissioner to inspect the premises and make a report as to who is in actual possession of the premises. I. A. No. 2 was also allowed restraining respondent-tenant from sub-leasing or permitting any third party to occupy the premises. As the commissioner was also directed to report on the structural changes, if any, made by the tenant, no orders were passed in I. A. No. 3. The commissioner filed his report on 12-11-2002.

( 5 ) THE daughter of the petitioner filed I. A. No. 1 of 2003 under Order 1, Rule 10 (2) of the CPC praying to permit her to implead herself in the above proceedings as a second petitioner. On 8-8-2003 this Court passed orders directing the posting of this application for hearing along with the main revision petition.

( 6 ) IN the meanwhile on 6-5-2003 the sole respondent died and the learned Counsel for the petitioner filed I. A. No. 2 of 2003 under Order 22, Rule 4 read with Section 5 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 for allowing the revision petition. The daughter of the deceased respondent, namely, Mrs. Kamal Y. Unvalla and her husband Adil N. Unvalla also filed I. A. No. 3 of 2003 for coming on record as legal representatives of the deceased tenant. These I. As were also directed to be posted for hearing along with the main petition.

( 7 ) DURING the pendency of the revision petition, the Karnataka Rent act, 1999 ('the present Act' for short) came into force bringing about a sea change in the law governing matters of eviction and regulation of rent. Section 5 of the present Act is one such comprehensive provision enacted with the specific purpose of limiting the inheritability of tenancy to certain specific period, the period of entitlement to the inheritency being different to different successors of the tenant depending on certain facts and circumstances which are enumerated in the provision itself. To better understand the specifics, I quote Section 5 in full. It reads:"5. Inheritability of tenancy. (1)

Click Here to Read the rest of this document