B. Veerappa, J.

This Writ Petition is filed by the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 (before the trial Court) against the order dated 28th October 2016 passed by the learned Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore in HRC No.63/2016 dismissing the Interlocutory Application filed under Order 7, Rule 11 (a) & (d) read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('CPC' for short).

2. Parties are referred to as per their ranking in the HRC Petition.

3. Petitioner/landlord filed HRC No.63/2016 praying to pass an order of eviction directing the respondents to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the schedule premises on the ground that the original tenant not being in occupation of the leased premises and on the ground of persons in occupation having failed to prove that they are bona fide tenants under the provisions of Section 27(b)(ii), 27(d)(i)(ii) and 27(p) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999.

4. It is the case of the petitioner - Ramachandrasa before the trial Court that he is the landlord and Respondent No. 1 was the tenant in respect of shop premises presently bearing Shop No.1, Ground Floor, Maruthi Plaza Block-'C', U.M. Lane, Chickpet, Bangalore, morefuly described in the schedule to the HRC Petition. The Petitioner and the 151 respondent have entered into the registered lease deed dated 22.2.1985 and the 1st respondent was inducted as a tenant under the petitioner and was put in possession of the schedule premises. The 1st respondent is a partnership firm which is represented by the 2nd respondent who was the actual and original partner of the 1st respondent - firm. In the said registered lease deed dated 22.2.1985, the 1st respondent was specifically restrained from sub-letting the schedule premises to any third parties without the consent of the petitioner in writing and also restrained the 1M respondent from selling the on-going concern i.e., the Is' respondent firm under the name and style "M/s Mahendra Watch Company" without the written consent of the petitioner. The 2nd respondent who is the actual and original partner of the 1" respondent firm has not been in occupation and possession of the schedule premises from the last three years without any reasonable cause and none of the family members of the 2nd respondent is in the occupation and possession of the schedule premises. He further contended that Respondent Nos.3 and 4 who are strangers with regard to the tenancy of the Is' respondent in respect of the schedule premises are unlawfully occupying the schedule premises and there is total and complete absence of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 who are the original tenants in the schedule premises and only the name board of the 1st respondent was put in the schedule premises. The Respondent Nos.3 and 4 without any authority are occupying the schedule premises and they are not tenants in the schedule premises and they do not have or possess any valid tenancy right over the schedule premises. The petitioner further contended that Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have sub-let the schedule premises to Respondent Nos.3 and 4 and they sold the on-going concern i.e., the 1st respondent firm under the name and style of "M/s Mahendra Watch Company" to Respondent Nos.3 and 4, which is in violation of terms and conditions of the registered sale deed dated 22.2.1985. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have committed the breach with regard to terms and conditions in the registered sale deed dated 22.2.1985 and therefore the tenancy of the 1st respondent is liable to be terminated. It is further contended that the schedule premises is leased by the petitioner to the 1st respondent only, which is a partnership firm by virtue of the registered lease deed dated 22.2.1985. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 are strangers and they do not have any right whatsoever in nature with regard to the tenancy of the 1st respondent in respect of the schedule premises. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 are illegally holding the schedule premises under Respondent Nos.1 and 2 in violation