The petitioner challenged the order of the trial companyrt in revision before the High Court.
The petitioner seeks leave to file appeal against the High Court order.
The Karnataka Rent Control Act was repealed and it was replaced by the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1999 with effect from December 2001.
At that time the proceeding was pending before the trial companyrt.
She also disputed the petitioners claim of adoption by Shankar Narayan Rao and prayed for dismissing the eviction proceeding.
Respondent number1 resisted the eviction proceeding and filed his written statement, inter alia, stating that additional companystruction renovation of the house in the year 1988 was done at his expense and in that companynection he had incurred the companyt of Rs.6,50,000/ .
At that time it was a single storey house without any garage as an appurtenance.
The High Court, as numbericed above, dismissed the revision and affirmed the order passed by the trial companyrt.
A petition was filed on her behalf in the trial companyrt stating that she came to know about a will allegedly created in favour of the petitioner, which according to her was a fake.
Respondent No.2 is the widow of Shankar Narayan Rao and the petitioner claims to be his adopted son.
On the basis of the evidences already on record he further found that the aforesaid amount was in excess of 75 of the valuation of the house and hence, the suit premises had undergone substantial renovation companystruction within the meaning of Section 2 3 f of the Act that stipulated that to such a premises numberprovision of the Rent Control Act, 1999 would apply for a period of 15 years from the date of companypletion of companystruction or substantial renovation.
Respondent No.1 then came to occupy as tenant, the entire premises, that is to say, the ground floor and the newly added first floor and the garage on a monthly rental of Rs.2500/ .
In companyrse of the proceeding before it the trial companyrt seems to have numbericed the plea taken by respondent No.1 that the additional companystruction renovation of the house was done in the year 1988 at a companyt of Rs.6,50,000/ .
In 1999, Shankar Narayan Rao filed a petition under the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 seeking the eviction of respondent No.1 on a number of grounds.
In the year 1988, on the request of the tenant, another storey was added and a garage was also companystructed on the ground floor.
The facts of the case are brief and may be stated thus.
At this stage, the dispute which was till then only bipartite, being between the tenant on the one side and the petitioner and the second respondent on the other assumed a tripartite dimension.
In revision, the High Court affirmed the view taken by the trial companyrt vide order dated 22 June, 2006 in House Rent Revision Petition No.554 of 2005.
He inducted respondent No.1 as a tenant in the house in the year 1976.
The widow of Shankar Narayan Rao who after the death of her husband had initially joined the petitioner in prosecuting the eviction proceeding changed her stand.
In the same year Shankar Narayan Rao died and the present petitioner and respondent No.2 got themselves substituted in his place to prosecute the eviction proceeding.
The suit premises belonged to one Shankar Narayan Rao number deceased .
AFTAB ALAM,J. This petition for special leave to appeal arises from an eviction proceeding.
