( 1 ) WRIT petition by a person who has suffered an eviction order dated 15-2-2000 passed under proviso (j) to sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 ('the 1961 Act' for short), that the landlord wanted the premises for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction questioning the legality of this order on the premise that the order is one without jurisdiction, that which could not have been passed under the provisions of the Act; that the provisions of the Act were never attracted to the situation and as such the order deserves to be quashed

( 2 ) THE brief facts leading to the above petition are that the respondent claiming to be the owner of the schedule premises instituted an eviction petition in H. R. C. No. 1 of 1994 on the file of the Munsiff at channapatna under proviso (j) to sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Act on the premise that the premises is reasonably and bona fide required by the landlord for the immediate purpose of demolishing and such demolition is to be made for the purpose of erecting a new building. The petitioner was the respondent in the eviction proceedings.

( 3 ) THE petitioner filed his objections pleading that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant as between the eviction petitioner and the answering respondent; that the respondent in the HRC case was in possession of the premises in his capacity as an agreement holder with the erstwhile owner one Iramma. Though he was earlier a tenant under the said person, the relationship had ceased on and after entering the agreement dated 23-9-1983 for the sale of the premises for a consideration whereupon the answering respondent was put in possession of the premises in part performance of the agreement and the respondent had paid the full sale consideration of Rs. 15,000/- under the agreement. As the relationship of landlord and tenant itself ceases on or after 23-9-1983 any purchasers, assuming that they are so, from the said erstwhile owner subsequent to this agreement cannot, at any rate, claim the status of a landlord vis-a-vis the respondent and as such prayed for dismissal of the eviction petition.

( 4 ) THE Trial Court, which examined the pleadings, very strangely, did not give due importance to the basic question as to the existence of the landlord and tenant relationship and it thought it fit to frame only one point for its determination as to.- "whether the petitioner made out a case that petition schedule premises bona fide required for demolition and reconstruction?"

( 5 ) IN the course of the order, the learned Trial Judge in fact noticed the stand of the respondent that there is no relationship of tenant and landlord as between himself and the petitioner, but, has for answering this question proceeded on an irrelevant consideration namely that while the respondent has not acted upon the agreement to acquire ownership either through a suit for specific performance or otherwise, the petitioner on the other hand has acquired title to the property and therefore cannot dispute the relationship of landlord and tenant as between the petitioner and respondent. The learned Trial Judge has also held that the petitioner had made out the ground under which she had sought for eviction and accordingly eviction was ordered.

( 6 ) IT appears the writ petitioner had preferred a revision petition under the provisions of Section 50 of the Act. As during the pendency of the revision petition, the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 came to be repealed and was replaced by the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, the petitioner thought it fit to approach this Court by filing the present writ petition, even when the revision petition had not been ordered. Subsequent to the filing of this writ petition, the petitioner has withdrawn the revision petition as one of no consequence. Even otherwise the revision petition would have abated by the operation of law.

( 7 ) I have heard Sri H. C. Jayakeerthi, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri

Click Here to Read the rest of this document