Point of Law : Section 31(1)(a) of Act provides that where landlady is a widow and premises let out by her, or by her husband, she is entitled to recover possession for her own use in such case, if she applies to court for recovery of immediate possession of such premises and in such an event court is obliged to pass the order of eviction of tenant and to recover immediate possession of premises for landlady.

ORDER :

P.G.M. Patil, J.

1. Defendant being aggrieved by judgment and decree dated 23.07.2016 passed in RR. No. 8/2015 by the I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad sitting at Hubballi, confirming the judgment and decree dated 08.09.2015 passed in RCA No. 20/2008 on the file of the II Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and JMFC III, Hubballi has filed this revision petition.

2. The status of the parties is referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court as landlady and tenant.

3. The respondent herein Smt. Sharadadevi filed RCA. No. 20/2008 before the II Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and JMFC III, Hubballi for eviction of the revision petitioner - tenant from the petition schedule premises under Section 27 (2) (r) and Section 31(c) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 2000.

4. It is the case of the petitioner before the trial Court that she is the lawful and absolute owner/landlady of the residential old house built up with mud walls, black tiles bearing CTS. No. 3521 + 3901, Municipal house No. 20399, and CTS ward No. V situated at Diwatagi Oni, near Dr. Konnur Hospital, Old Hubli, Hubli. One Smt. Jinabi W/o Mohammed Fazal Pathan was the original tenant after her death, her husband Mohammad Fazal Pathan became the tenant and after his death his son by name Ayab Khan S/o Mohammed Fazal Pathan, the present respondent has continued the tenancy on monthly rent of Rs. 15/-. The monthly tenancy commences from 1st day of English Calendar month and ends in the last day of the same month. The petitioner is senior citizen, aged about 73 years. The respondent was irregular in payment of rent, and rents from July 2004 amounting to Rs. 705/- was due. The petition premises is unsafe and HDMC Authorities have given notices to both the parties on 31.01.2005 and 05.05.2007. Thus, she requested tenant to hand over vacant possession on the ground that she requires petition premises for reconstruction and thereafter, for her bona fide personal use and occupation, but in vain. Thereafter, she got issued demand notice dated 14.02.2008. The respondent tenant did not care for the notice. Thus, she was constrained to file the said petition for eviction of the respondent.

5. In pursuance of the notice, the respondent appeared before the trial Court and filed his objections contending that the petition is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of parties. Apart from the respondent his family members are also residing therein. He has denied description of the petition property. He contended that the petition premises comes in CTS. No. 3521 and he admitted municipal number. It is also contended that the petitioner was only rent collector after the death of Smt. Parvatevva Ramadurga, the petitioner has not issued rent receipts and he is ready to pay the rents. Thus, he denied the petitioner to be the owner of petition premises. He also denied that the petition premises is unfit for human habitation and prayed for dismissal of the petition.

6. In support of the petition, the petitioner herself got examined as PW-1 and got marked 19 documents. The original respondent died during the pendency of the said petition and his son respondent No. 1(a) got examined as RW. 1 and got marked 26 documents as Exs. R. 1 to 26.

7. The trial Court after hearing both the parties allowed the petition and directed the respondent to evict and handover the possession of the petition premises to the petitioner within three months from the date of the order.

8. The tenant being aggrieved by the said order filed R.R. No. 8/2015 on the file of the I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad, sitting at Hubballi. The revisional Court secured the LCR, heard both the learned counsels appearing for the parties and passed the impugned order on 23.07.2016, thereby the rent revision petition filed under Section 46(2) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 was dismissed with costs. Thereby the order passed in RCA. No. 20/2008 was confirmed.

9. The respondent being aggrieved by the impugned order has filed this rev