1. Common order on the revision petitions regarding admission.

2. These three revision petitions filed under Section 46(1) of Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 have arisen out of final orders passed by the Chief Judge in Eviction Petition in HRC Nos. 107/2013, 108/2013 and 109/2013. All these petitions have been disposed of on 15.10.2015 by separate considered orders.

3. The revision petitioners were respondents in all these three eviction petitions filed under Section 27(2)(r) of Karnataka Rent Act, 1999. In the case, bearing No. 107/2013 Section 5 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, has also been revoked by the petitioner therein.

4. Perused the impugned orders passed in HRC Nos. 107 to 109/2013 and heard the learned counsel representing the revision petitioners in all these cases.

5. Schedule property in HRC No. 107/2013 is described as residential premises in fourth floor of property bearing No.4 (New No.4/11), situated at 2nd Cross, Belli Basavanna Temple Street, Mamulpet, Bangalore consists of one hall, one kitchen with toilet-cum-bathroom. Schedule property mentioned in HRC No. 108/2013 is the adjacent residential premises, consists of one hall, one room, kitchen, one pooja room with toilet-cum-bathroom and the schedule property mentioned in HRC No.109/2013 is a commercial premises in the ground floor of the same property, measuring 6’ x 13’.

6. The entire building consists of three portions and one portion belonging to one T.R. Mallikarjun. The said Mallikarjun is no more. Petitioners in HRC No.107.2013 and 108/2013 are his son Vinay and wife Rekha. In HRRP No.109/2013 the petitioners are One Mr. Siddeswar S/o. deceased T.R. Mallikarjun and Rekha wife of deceased T.R. Mallikarjun.

7. A legal notice was got issued by Smt. Rekha W/o. T.R. Mallikarjun on 17.04.2013 calling upon Smt. Bindu Mishra, wife of Dileepkumar Mishra and daughter-in-law of late Harishankar Mishra to vacate and handover the residential premises occupied by her. The said notice is marked at Ex.P5 in the trial Court. The said notice was replied by Smt. Bindu Mishra on 06.05.2013 through her advocate which was marked at Ex.P6.

8. After relying on the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the learned Judge has come to the conclusion that there exists jural relationship of land lord and tenant between the parties and that the premises are used and occupied by the petitioners. It is also specifically held that Smt. Bindu Mishra herself has split up the tenancy and therefore the petitions are maintained.

9. What is argued before this Court by Sri H.J. Sanghvi is that the Court is not empowered to split up the tenancy. There is sufficient evidence insofar as to show the existence of jural relationship of the landlord and the tenant between the parties. It is further argued that the trial Court has not properly analyzed the oral and documentary evidence in prescriptive and the trial Court has adopted wrong procedure.

10. He has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Maria Maregarida Sequeria Fernandes vs. Erasmo Jack de Sequeria, 2012 AIR SCW 2162, wherein, it is held that the truth should be the guiding star in the entire judicial process and the real truth should be to discern properly. It is further argued that, it is the bounden duty of the judge to properly analyze the truth more particularly when the very relation of the land lord and tenancy is disputed.

11. After perusal of the records, it is evident that when the notice was got issued vide Ex.P5, the tenancy was in respect of only one residential premises and it was in occupation of Smt. Bindu Mishra. Admittedly, Sri Dileepkumar Mishra one of the respondent in the trial Court is none other than the son of original tenant Mr. Harishankar and Smt. Bindu Mishra is none other than the wife of Sri Dileepkumar Mishra and daughter-in-law of Sri Harishankar Mishra and Hitesh Kumar Mishra is the son of Dileepkumar Mishra and Smt. Bindu Mishra. All of them constitute a joint fam