(This HRRP is filed u/s 46(1) of Karnataka Rent Act against the judgment and order dated 30.11.2007 passed in HRC.No.10044/2006 on the file of the XV Addl. Small causes Judge, Mayohall Unit, Bangalore, allowing petition filed u/s. 27(2)(a) and (r) of Karnataka Rent Act, dismissing the petition filed u/s 5 of the K.R. Act.)

These three revision petitions are filed by the tenants challenging the order passed in H.R.C.Nos.10044/06, 10045/06 and 10043/06 by the order dated 30.11.07 passed by learned XV Addl. Small Causes Judge (SCCH-19), Bangalore. The said eviction petitions filed by the respondent landlords under Section 27(2)(a), (r) and 5 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 have been allowed granting the petitioners six months’ time to quit and hand over the vacant possession of the schedule premises.

Since common questions arise in these revision petitions, they have been taken up for hearing together and are disposed of by this common order.

Although the schedule premises in the three revision petitions are different, the parties in these revision petitions are common and have common interest.

2. The relevant facts of the case are that respondents who are the landlords had initiated eviction petition under Section 27(2) (a), (r) and under Section 5 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 seeking eviction of the petitioners/tenants from the respective schedule premises on the ground that they, being the landlords, had required the premises for their own use and that the tenants had failed to deposit the rents and on account of the death of the original tenant, the tenancy has ceased by virtue of Section 5 of the Act.

3. On receipt of notice from the trial Court, the petitioners herein appeared and filed their statement of objections contending that by virtue of agreement of sale dated 3.3.1993, between the parties, the schedule premises in all the three cases were agreed to be sold by the respondents to the petitioners for a valuable consideration and that they were in possession of the premises by virtue of the said agreement of sale w.e.f. 3.3.1993 and therefore the petitions for eviction filed by the respondents herein were not maintainable and hence the same ought to be dismissed.

4. In support of their case, respondents examined first respondent as PW-1 and got marked Exs-P1 to P6, while the second petitioner herein was examined as RW-1 and the first petitioner herein was examined as RW-2 and another witness as RW-3 and Exs-R1 to R15 were got marked.

5. Basedon the pleadings of the parties and the evidence on record, the trial court raised the following points for its consideration:-

.a. Whether the petitioners prove that there exists relationship of landlord and tenants between them and the respondents?

.b. Whether the petitioners prove that the respondents have neither paid nor tendered the whole of arrears of rent within two months from the date of receipt of notice of demand for payment of rent?

.c. Whether the petitioners prove that petition schedule premises for their own use and occupation?

.d. Whether the petitioners are entitled to the relief u/s. 5 of the Karnataka Rent Act 1999?

.e. What order?

6. After considering the evidence on record, the trial Court answered point Nos.1 to 3 in affirmative and point No.4 in negative and by its Final order dated 30.11.07, dismissed the petition under Section 5 of the Act and allowed the petition under Section 27(2)(a) and (r) of the Act. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have preferred these revision petitions.

I have heard Sri. Janardhana G., learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. M.L. Dayanand Kumar, Sri. M/D. Raghunath and Sri. Hitesh Kumar Jain, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 & 2A.

7. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the trial Court had failed to consider the effect of the agreements of sale dated 3.3.1993(Ex-R1) on the facts and circumstances of the case, inasmuch as on and from the execution of the said agreements, the