The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of ownership in determining the landlord-tenant relationship and the obligation of the tenant to deposit rent and file an application under Section 43 of the Karnataka Rent Act.

JUDGMENT :

Sreenivas Harish Kumar, J.

1. This revision petition is filed by the tenant who has suffered an order of eviction. In the first instance, the respondent herein initiated eviction proceeding, HRC 84/2002, against the petitioner in this revision petition under section 27(2)(r) and Section 31 of the Karnataka Rent Act. The respondent pleaded before the court of first instance that the petitioner was her tenant in respect of a residential accommodation (the premises) on a monthly rent of Rs. 400/- the tenancy came into existence on the basis of an oral agreement, but it was from month to month. She stated that she required the premises for accommodating her second son who was to be married and for this reason she sought eviction of the petitioner.

2. The petitioner contested the eviction proceeding. He denied the truth in the reason given by respondent for evicting him. He also denied the respondent's right to evict him; he denied jural relationship of landlord and tenant.

3. The court of first instance held that petitioner was respondent's tenant. It assigned the reasons that the petitioner failed to prove that he constructed the house, that there was valid decree of the Civil Court in favour of the respondent and the order passed by the municipality was held to be illegal and void, that the petitioner failed to prove that the land where premises existed belonged to the government, that it was not the case of the petitioner that he had purchased the property from a lawful owner, that he was not a licencee and hence he should be a tenant. Arriving at these conclusions, the court of first instance allowed the eviction petition and ordered for petitioner's eviction.

4. The petitioner questioned this order by filing a revision petition under section 46(2) of the Karnataka Rent Act, to the District Court, Mangaluru. The District Court also concurred with the findings of court of first instance and dismissed the revision petition. Hence this revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

5. The main point of argument of Sri. P.P. Hegde, the learned counsel for petitioner is that the court of first instance has erroneously drawn an inference that the petitioner is respondent's tenant. It has wrongly drawn a presumption rather that the petitioner must be a tenant as his ownership over the premises or his authority to remain in possession being a licensee is not established. He argued that ownership of a person in respect of a property is some thing different from a person being a landlord entitled to evict a tenant. The premises is situated in a government land, his name found a place in the municipal records earlier. The survey conducted also showed that the premises was a part of government land. The respondent claimed oral tenancy, but at least a single document which otherwise would circumstantially establish the oral tenancy was produced, and hence the petitioner's stand that he is not a tenant under the respondent should have been upheld. He argued that even if the respondent could be held to be the owner of the premises, still he had no right to initiate proceeding under Karnataka Rent Act for eviction of the petitioner. She should have filed a suit for possession. He argued for allowing of revision petition.

6. On the other hand the learned counsel for respondent argued for sustaining the judgments of the two courts. He argued that by virtue of decree in O.S. No. 424/2002, the respondent was declared as absolute owner of the premises; this judgment attained finality as the two appeals RA 191/2007 and RA 127/2007 preferred against that judgments were dismissed and therefore the petitioner had no right to contend that the premises was situated in a government land. The petitioner simply disputed the relationship, but failed to establish it. If really there did not exist jural relationship of landlord and tenant, the petitioner could have made an application under Section 43 of the Karnataka Rent Act. Theref