(HRRP filed U/S 46(1) of K.R.Act, against the order dated: 31.5.2010 passed in HRC.No.95/2006 on the file of the Chief Judge, court of small causes, Bangalore, acting under Sec. 27(2)(o) of K.R.Act, ordering the respondent therein to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of petition schedule premises infavour of the petitioner therein with in 3 months from the date of this order, failing which, the petitioner therein is at liberty to seek delivery of possession.)

This revision is against the order of eviction dated 31.5.2010 in H.R.C.No.95/2006 on the file of Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. The factual matrix surfacing from the material on record is:

(a) Smt. Ayesha Mohiddin, the respondent herein, sought eviction of the petitioner invoking the provisions of clauses (a), (e) and (r) of Section 27(2) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, (hereinafter referred to as the Act, for brevity), on the premise she is the absolute owner of premises bearing No.57/1, situate at 6th Cross, 5th Main Road, Chamrajpet, Bangalore-560 018, in occupation of the petitioner herein, having acquired it by an indenture of sale dated 25.6.2002 from her grandmother-Lingamma. Since then she has been exercising right of ownership.

(b) According to her, petitioner was inducted as tenant in the premises in question by her predecessor-in-title on a monthly rent of Rs.500/- p.m. and premium deposit of Rs.30,000/- refundable on termination of tenancy. He is a chronic defaulter in payment of rent and had fallen in arrears, but had not quantified the amount.

(c) She further averred the building is in a dilapidated condition requiring immediate demolition and she intends to reconstruct it suitable for her need. She thus sought his eviction under various clauses of Section 27(2) of the Act.

(d) Petitioner resisted eviction action initially denying jural relationship of landlord and tenant between her and him and in this regard specifically averred he knew only Lingamma to be the owner of the property in question who had inducted him in the premises. Lingamma had transacted with him to sell the property in question for a valuable consideration of Rs.3,50,000/- and in this regard had executed an agreement of sale dated 8.11.1995. In terms thereof, he paid the entire sale consideration to her on various dates, in consideration of which, Lingamma executed a deed of absolute sale on 17.8.1998 transferring unto him all her right and interest. Thus he set up title in himself. On this basis, he assertively urged eviction action under the provisions of the Rent Act was untenable and sought dismissal of the petition in limine. He also countered other grounds urged by the landlord seeking his eviction.

(e) Apart from resisting eviction action on the ground of lack of jural relationship, through his counter, he filed an application under Section 43(2) of the Act to stay further proceedings and to direct the respondent to obtain a declaration of her title in a civil court of competent jurisdiction.

(f) Necessarily the learned trial judge had to decide the issue of vinculum juris between the parties based on the material propositions in the pleadings, particularly grounds urged in the application.

(g) To do so, learned trial judge has conducted an enquiry on the plea of the tenant in the application under Section 43(2) of the Act. Both sides have led evidence, ocular and documentary. Analysing it, learned trial judge opined respondent-landlord’s evidence outweighs the plea and evidence of the petitioner-tenant and thus, by order dated 24.4.2010 dismissed the application under Section 43(2) of the Act.

(h) It is material to note soon thereafter, without conducting any further enquiry on the merit of the petition filed by the respondent, learned judge has passed the second order on 31.5.2010 allowing the petition, directing the tenant to be evicted under clause (o) of Section 27(2) of the Act.

(i) T