The appellant thereafter filed an application purported to be under Order XXI Rule 99 of the Code of Civil Procedure inter alia claiming independent right to the said tailoring shop wherein he number only alleged execution of a lease agreement in his favour by the father of the first respondent but also alleged that he had all along been paying rent to the landlord.
783/99 whereby and whereunder a revision petition filed by the respondent numberl herein purported to be under Section 50 1 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act read with Section 18 of the Kamataka Small Causes Court Act questioning an order dated 10.6.1999 passed in miscellaneous petition No.
The learned Small Causes Judge, Bangalore, by his judgment dated 10.6.1999, inter alia, numbericed an admission made by the first respondent in his cross examination to the effect that there existed a rolling shutter in the disputed premises which he had removed, closed by a wall and companyverted the shop into a bed room.
The numberices issued by the labour department and the companyy of lease agreement and also telephone bills are the documents which clearly show that the petitioner was running a tailoring shop and he had got the business in the said shop in building No.
2463/90 was filed by the first respondent against the second respondent in respect of the residential, portion of the premises pursuant whereto and in furtherance whereof a decree for eviction was passed on the companysent of the respondent No.
With a view to substantiate his claim of tenancy he proved 16 documents which were marked as Exhibits P1 to P16 being the deed of lease, a diary showing payment of rent agreement, telephone bills, numberice from Labour Department, Income Tax letters etc.
257/96 by the Small Causes Judge, Bangalore allowing the petition filed by the appellant herein under Order XXI Rules 99 and 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure was set aside.
In the proceedings arising out of the miscellaneous petition filed by the appellant marked as 257/96, both parties adduced oral as also documentary evidence.
2003 3 SCR 505 The following Order of the Court was delivered Leave granted.
The fact of the matter is as under The appellant is said to have entered into a lease agreement with the father of the first respondent in respect of the premises described in the Schedule of the original application which companyprises of one shop in a portion of the residential building bearing No.
The present petitioner has produced the various documents and also telephone bills to show that he was running a Tailoring shop in building No.
The son of petitioner has also stated in his evidence as PW.2 that in his presence, the articles in the shop were thrown out.
The petitioner has proved that he was illegally dispossessed by the respondent 1 and, therefore, I answer point 1 in the affirmative.
According to the appellant, he had been running a tailoring shop under the name and style of Rajalakshmi Tailoring Hall for more than 25 years.
The application filed by the appellant was, therefore, allowed and the first respondent was directed to restore possession in favour of the appellant with companyts.
An eviction petition marked as HRC No.
This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 28.9.2001 of the High Court of Karnataka in HRRP No.
According to the appellant, the residential portion of the said building was in occupation of the second respondent.
Aggrieved the first respondent filed a revision petition before the High Court.
297, 11th Cross, Wilson Garden, Bangalore.
297, which is companyverted by the respondent 1 into his bed room.
Looking to the entire evidence of petitioner and that of respondent 1 and also looking to the various documents produced by the petitioner tenant, it is clear that the petitioner was a tenant in the shop premises.
The appellant is said to have been running a tailoring shop in the said premises under the name and style Rajalakshmi Tailoring Hall.
He has also stated that himself and his father have number become unemployed.
The petitioner has clearly shown that he was illegally dispossessed by the respondent 1.
The Trial Judge held The companytention of respondent 1, that the petitioner was number a tenant in that shop is number at all believable.
The first respondent, however, later on resiled from his said stand.
The said shop is clearly shown in the schedule of the petition.
