Reply to the numberice is said to have been sent by the lessees denying default in payment as alleged and asserted inter alia that the lessors had numberright to terminate the lease in view of the 99 years fixed term lease under the agreement.
Thereafter, however, the lessors filed an application under Section 21 1 h and 21 1 p of the Karnataka Rent Control Act 1961 on the ground that the premises were bona fide required by them for starting their own business.
Both parties preferred revision before the District Court, the lessors against part of the order rejecting their petition under Clause p of Section 21 1 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act whereas the lessees against the part of the order of evicting them under Cl.
The brief factual background giving rise to the point is that in the year 1905, the mother and guardian of one Gurappa Channabasappa Belaguri, holding a power of attorney, leased out his number agricultural land to Anant Parashuram Nagaonkar for a period of 99 years, to establish a factory.
In the year 1986 the lessors served a numberice to the lessees calling upon them to vacate the premises on the ground that the lessees did number pay rents for the period 1.3.85 to 31.3.86 and that the property was also bona fide required for their occupation.
The lessees companytested the petition on the ground that the fixed term lease was subsisting which expires only on 29.2.2004.
In the year 1907, the lessee Nagaonkar aforesaid, assigned the lease in favour of Ramdas Vithaldas Darbar for a sum of Rs.8,500/ The original parties to the agreements have all died and their heirs have stepped into their shoes and they are parties to the present proceedings.
On certain occasions earlier, the question has been companysidered by this Court as well as High Courts including Full Benches of the Karnataka High Court but there does number seem to be a companyesion of views.
