Sri.Sathish.M.S., learned counsel for the petitioner and

Smt.Padmaja S.Tadapatri., learned counsel for the respondent

have appeared in person.

2.

The parties shall be referred to as per their status

and ranking before the Trial Court.

3.

The Brief facts of the case are stated as under:

It is the case of the petitioner that, the petition schedule

premises belongs to her and she is the owner and landlord and

paying tax on it. That one Bharmappa the father of the

respondent has taken petition schedule premises on a rent basis

from the husband of the petitioner namely, Dharmasa R.Bharade

3

on a monthly rent of Rs.10/- per month on executing an

Agreement of Rent on 17.01.1972. It is stated that after the

death of his father, the respondent herein began to continue as a

tenant under Dharmasa R.Bharade on the same terms &

conditions as agreed by his father and began to pay a monthly

rent of Rs.10/- to Dharmasa R.Bharade.

It is said that the Dharmasa R.Bharade died during the

pendency of tenancy on 15-12-2004 leaving behind the

petitioner and his two sons as his legal heirs. The petitioner has

become the absolute owner of the scheduled mentioned

premises; the khatha has been changed in her name and she

began to exercise her right over the same. It is further stated

that after the death of Dharmasa R.Bharade, the respondent

began to pay a monthly rent of Rs.10/- to the petitioner, thus

there exists a relationship as Land Lord and the tenant between

the petitioner and the respondent. Thus, the Respondent began

to reside in the schedule mentioned premises on the same terms

& conditions as mentioned in the earlier Rent Agreement dated

4

17.01.1972

executed

between

his

father

and

Dharmasa

R.Bharade.

Contending that the petition schedule premises is required

for bonafide use and occupation, the petitioner filed a petition for

eviction.

After service of notice, the respondent appeared through

his counsel and filed his verified objections, in which he had

denied the relationship. He denied the ownership of the

petitioner and further contended that his father is the absolute

owner of the property in question. After his death, the legal heirs

succeeded to the same and they are residing in the property

jointly as owners. Among other grounds, he prayed for the

dismissal of the petition.

Based on the above pleadings, the Trial Court framed the

following points for consideration:

POINTS

1) Whether the petitioner proves that, the father

of the respondent by name Bharmappa, and

5

after

his

death

of

said

Bharmapa

the

respondent has continued as a tenant in the

petition schedule premises?

2) Whether the petitioner further proves the

willful default in payment of rent by the

respondent as alleged in the petition?

3) Whether the petitioner is entitled to the reliefs

as sought in the petition?

4) What order or decree?

To substantiate their contention, the petitioner examined

herself as PW1 and produced nineteen documents which are

marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.19. On the other hand, the respondent

examined himself as RW1 and a witness as RW2 and produced

twenty-three documents which are marked as Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.23.

On the trial of the action, the Principal Civil Judge & JMFC,

Hospet partly allowed the H.R.C petition directing the respondent

to vacate the petition schedule premises within a period of two

months from the date of the order.

6

Aggrieved by the order the respondent preferred Revision

Petition in H.R.C Revision Petition No.5001/2015. The Rent

Revision Court dismissed the revision petition confirming the

order of the Trial Court. Aggrieved, by the said order, this

Petition is filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent

urged several contentions.

To substantiate her contention, learned counsel for the

petitioner has relied on the following decisions.

1.

AYESHA BEGUM Vs. SHAHZADI - ILR 2003 KAR

4255.

2.

SRI.ANANTSWAMI Vs. SMT.RADHA SRINATH

AND ANOTHER - ILR 2010 KAR 2204.

3.

RAM