(This HRRP is filed u/s 46(1) of Karnataka Rent Act, against the order dated 23.10.2009 passed in H.R.C. 134/2006 on the file of the Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore, allowing the petition filed under section 27(2)(r) of Karnataka Rent Act., etc.)

The Revision Petition has questioned the correctness and the legality of judgment passed in HRC 124/2006 by the Chief Judge, Small Causes Court, Bangalore dated 23.10.2009. The parties are referred to as per their rank before court below.

2. The petitioner initiated eviction proceedings against one Sri. Hussain in HRC No.10437/1998 on the file of the 1st Additional Small Causes Judge, Bangalore under the then Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 under Section 21(1)(h) & (j) seeking eviction of Mr. Hussain in respect of premises Shop No.59, Sultanji Gunta Road, Civil Station, Bangalore which had been morefully described in the petition as schedule premises in the said petition. It was contended in the said petition that they required the petition schedule premises for their bonafide use and occupation, i.e., 1st petitioner Mr. Mohammed Noor was without any avocation and intended to start business in cold storage for animal food in the schedule shop as well in the adjacent shops which is under the tenancy of Dr. Jayaprakash and it was contended that it is ideal and suitable for the 1st petitioner’s proposed business and it was contended that keeping this requirement also into consideration the petition schedule property was purchased by them. It was also contended that respondent is a statutory tenant under petitioner whereby they claimed no notice of attornment of tenancy is required to be given as provided under the provisions of Transfer of Property Act to the respondent. On service of notice, respondent therein i.e., Mr. Hussain initially appeared and was represented though Mr. Narayan I. Naik, Advocate and on his no objection to engage any other Advocate Sri. Janardhan, Advocate appeared and no statement of objections were filed.

3. Thereafterwards, petitioner No.1, Mr. Mohammed Noor came to be examined as PW

1. There was no cross-examination and it was taken as nil.

4. In the said HRC petition an application came to be filed under Order 1 Rule 8(a) by one Mr. Nirmal K. Jain son of Sri. Kastur Chand seeking permission of the court to come on record as one of the respondent. It was contended in the affidavit supporting the application that he is in possession of the petition schedule premises and there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between him and the petitioners therein and he was paying rent to Arul Migu Pandrinathar Temple, Tiruchi. The said application came to be resisted by the petitioners therein by filing a detailed objections and thereafterwards, said application came to be dismissed by order dt: 31.03.2003 and same has reached finality since it was not challenged.

5. Thereafterwards, the eviction petition HRC.10437/1998 came to be dismissed for non-prosecution by order dt: 29.11.2004. On dismissal of the same HRC 134/2006 came to be filed by the petitioners under Section 27(2)(b)&(r) and Section 31 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 before the Principal Judge, Small Causes Court, Bangalore on 01.04.2006. Mr. Hussain was arrayed as 1st respondent and Nirmal K. Jain was arrayed as the 2nd respondent. The 1st respondent on service of notice remained absent and as such came to be placed exparte. Respondent No.2 entered appearance and filed objections to the main petition on 4.3.2007. The contentions raised in the petition was that petitioners under sale deed dated 29.8.2008 had purchased the entire building for valuable consideration in which the petition schedule premises is situated and tenancy of the 1st respondent was duly attorned and 1st respondent is the tenant under petitioner paying a monthly rent of Rs.100/-and tenancy commence on 1st day of every English Calendar month and ends on last day of the month. It was further contended that 2nd r