Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The petition filed by Smt. N. Kamalamma (predecessor in interest of the
respondent) under Section 21(a)(b)(f) and (j) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act (for
short, ‘the Act’) for eviction of N.S. Subbanarasimha Sastry who is now represented
by L.Rs. was dismissed by the Principal Munsiff, Madhugiri, by recording a finding
that the petitioner has failed to prove landlord-tenant relationship between her and
the non-petitioner (appellant herein). The revision filed by the respondent under
Section 50 of the Act was dismissed by First Additional District Judge, Tumkur and
the finding recorded by the Principal Munsiff on the issue of landlord-tenant
relationship between the parties was confirmed. However, the High Court allowed
the second revision preferred by the respondent and ordered eviction of the
appellants herein. The review petition filed by the appellants was dismissed by the
High Court. Hence, these appeals by special leave.
...2/-
A reading of the impugned order along with those passed by the Principal
Munsiff and First Additional District Judge shows that while the Trial Court and
First Revisional Court, after an in-depth analysis of oral and documentary evidence
produced by the parties recorded concurrent finding that the original petitioner has
failed to prove landlord-tenant relationship between her and the non-petitioner, the
High Court reversed the same without even recording a finding that the conclusions
reached by the courts below are perversed. This being the position, the order in
challenge is liable to be set aside with a direction to the High Court to decide the
revision of the respondent afresh.
Accordingly, the appeals are allowed, impugned orders are set aside and
the matter is remitted to the High Court for fresh disposal of the revision petition
filed by the respondent in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to
the parties.
No costs.
[G.S. SINGHVI] New Delhi, March 31, 2009.