The present petition is directed against the order passed by the Principal District Judge in Civil Revision (Rent) Petition No.2/2007 on 23.2.2010. The revision petitioner initiated eviction proceedings under the relevant provisions of Karnataka Rent Act1999 by filing eviction petition in HRC No.8/2006 on the file of the Prl.Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Davanagere.

2. Respondent herein had contested the same by filing an application under Section 43 of Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 by denying the very existence of jural relationship of landlord and tenant.

3. The case put forth by the respondent herein in HRC No.8/2006 is that though he was inducted originally as tenant by the petitioner, same has been merged with the agreement of sale executed by the petitioner in his favour on 4.8.1994 agreeing to sell the suit schedule property for a sum of Rs.1.95 Lakhs. It is further stated that the petitioner has received a sum of Rs.20,000/as advance out of the agreed consideration of Rs.1.95 Lakhs on 4.8.1994 while executing the agreement of sale. The case put forth by the respondent herein is that the petitioner has received a sum of Rs.1.35 Lakhs in all towards agreed consideration and therefore the relationship of landlord and tenant does not exist.

4. Relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana reported in ILR 1975 (2) P & H 277, the learned Judge of the rent court has held that tenancy has merged with the agreement of sale and therefore relationship of the landlord and tenant does not exist. Further, the learned Judge of the Trial Court has held that the landlord has not placed any material such as the lease agreement or rent receipts in regard to the existence of tenancy.

5. The order dated 23.8.2007 passed in HRC 8/2006 on an application filed under Section 43 of Karntaka Rent Act, 1999 was challenged before the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Davanagere in Civil Revision (Rent) Petition No.2/2007 under Section 46(2) of Karnataka Rent Act. Relying upon the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, the learned District Judge has dismissed the said revision petition and thus affirmed the judgment of the Trial Court passed in HRC No.8/2006. It is this concurrent findings which are called in question in the present revision petition.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the point that arises for consideration is:

“Whether the Trial Court is justified in holding that the tenancy has merged with the agreement of sale dated 4.8.1994 and thus there is no relationship of land lord and tenant?

8. Perused the copy of Ex.D2 agreement of sale entered into between the parties on 4.8.1994. The petitioner herein has executed an agreement of sale in favour of respondent agreeing to sell plaint schedule property for a sum of Rs.1.95 Lakhs it also discloses receipt of Rs.20,000/as advance on the said date in the presence of the witnesses who have attested to the said document. Several clauses have been incorporated in the agreement of sale. They are as follows:

“At the time of registration of documents pertaining to the following schedule a copy of General Power of Attorney have to be issued as a reference.

The Municipal Tax, Khata Extract, House List Assessment Copy etc., if any must be cleared and the Original Receipt order have to be issued at the time of document registration.

Before or after the document registration, if any legal litigation arises regarding the premises by any concerned person or authorities have to be solved by the G.P Holder at their cost.

At the time of Document registration the G.P. Holder of the following schedule property have to be submit a No Objection Certificate or Clearance Certificate for Sale from the Income Tax Authority or otherwise the legality of the premises may stand in question.

That after the above 4 condition completed and if the party No.1 SRI.M.K. MADHAVA RAO failed to register the documents at his cost i