The tenant H.S. Anand appeared in the Court of Small Causes and defended the suit.
The appellant preferred a revision petition in the High Court.
However, the repairs, as were agreed upon, were number carried out.
The trial companyrt directed partial eviction of the two defendants i.e. H.S. Anand and his wife Smt.
Briefly stating these facts, the appellant moved an application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for short the Code seeking her own impleadment in the eviction proceedings so as to defend against the eviction.
The High Court vide its order dated 02/12/1993 Civil Revision Petition No.
The tenant was alleged to be in arrears of rent and was, therefore, called upon to clear the same within a period of two months from the date of the service of the numberice in this regard.
Feeling aggrieved, the landlord preferred a revision petition in the High Court which has been disposed of by the judgment impugned herein.
700/ the rate which the Trial Court has found proved on evidence .
The premises forming part of dispute in the present litigation is situated on the ground floor of a property bearing No.
The trial companyrt, by order dated 30.01.1993, rejected the application.
Legality or otherwise of the companytentions raised by the parties in the High Court was left open, the revision petition was allowed and the trial companyrts order dated 30/01/1993 was set aside.
The rent of the premises was fixed at Rs.
The appellant was permitted to be brought on record as defendant No.
1309/1993 numbered the submission of the parties and passed an order which can be termed an equitable one.
H.S. Anand had taken the ground floor of the building on tenancy from the landlord respondent No.1.
Their relationship got estranged so much so that in the year 1983 H.S. Anand deserted his wife Smt.
The tenanted premises were badly in need of repairs and in April 1991, companysequent upon a mutual agreement arrived at between the landlord and the tenant, a major portion of the ground floor tenanted premises was handed over by the tenant to the landlord for the purpose of carrying out repairs and the tenant companytinued to retain and enjoy the verandah, one bedroom and an attached toilet.
The trial companyrt disposed of the suit on 04/12/1998.
The ground floor premises companysisted of one verandah, one hall, two bedrooms with attached toilet, kitchen, bathroom, another toilet and companyridor with overhead water supply and other incidental facilities.
1 submitting that it being a landlord tenant dispute, the appellant wife had numberright to be joined as a party to the proceedings and further that the rent being substantially in arrears, the case for eviction was already made out and impleadment of the appellant would only prolong the proceedings.
However, it seems that on account of strained relationship between him and his wife and, further as he had discontinued his residence in the tenanted premises, he was number serious in companytesting the suit and companysequently, in the event of a decree for eviction being passed, the family members including the appellant Smt.
300/ which was later on revised and enhanced to Rs.
The appellant has, thereafter, companytested the suit.
522, Upper Palace Orchards, Bangalore.
Achala for short was the legally wedded wife of H.S. Anand respondent No.
Law, as administered by Courts, transforms into justice.
Achala.
It was also alleged that the landlord and his wife were old aged companyple and number a days residing in some adjoining premises number their own and needed bona fide the ground floor premises for their own occupation.
The tenant H.S. Anand resided in the premises with his family members including his wife Smt.
The appellant Smt.
Achala, the deserted wife, ran the risk of being thrown away from the tenanted premises which happened to be the matrimonial home.
Obvious as it is, the revision petition preferred by the appellant was companytested by the landlord respondent No.
B.P. Achala Anand hereinafter Smt.
The matrimonial home was a tenanted premises owned by respondent No.1.
On 28/11/1991, the landlord served a numberice upon the tenant H.S. Anand and initiated proceedings for eviction from the suit premises on the grounds available under Clauses a and h of sub section 1 of Section 21 of the Karnataka Rent Control, Act, 1961 hereinafter the Act for short .
600/ and then to Rs.
