Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

NC: 2024:KHC:36399

10. It is further contended that since there is sub-let of the premises and no payment of rent and also on account of death of original tenant, the period of five years to enjoy the property as per Section 5 of the Act, gets extinguished long back and therefore, sought possession of the property through aforesaid Eviction petition.

11. Pursuant to the notice issued by the Eviction Court, respondents appeared through an advocate and filed detailed statement of objections contending that the respondents are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as absolute owners of the Moolgeni rights. They further contended that they being moolgeni tenants, it is a permanent tenancy and therefore, there is no question of termination of the moolgeni as is contended by the petitioner.

16. Sri K.Sachindra Karanth, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that Moolgeni is not in dispute, as the petitioner himself has produced original registered Moolgeni chit-Ex.P.2. It is his contention that after amalgamation of the Karnataka Rent Act, Mulagar would also be protected by the Rent Act and therefore, Eviction petition was maintainable before the Eviction Court, which has not been properly appreciated by the Eviction Court as well as Revision Court resulting in miscarriage of justice. It is also his argument that the respondent is a tenant only under Mulagar. Since payment of rent is not paid for several years and the mulagar has been alienated by sub-letting the premises, rights available under mulgeni also makes out case for the revision petitioner to forfeit the lease and obtain possession of the property.

17. He further contended that the tenant has gone on challenging his version to suit his convenience, which could be very well seen from the contents of cross examination of PW.1

- 10 -

NC: 2024:KHC:36399 resulting in confusion as to his status. He further points out the suggestion made to PW.1 goes to show that on one hand, tenant wants to take advantage of the terms of moolgeni chit at Ex.P.2, on the other hand, tries to get protection under the Rent Act 1999, therefore, the trial Court ought not to have dismissed the eviction petition, which was confirmed by the First Appellate Court and sought for allowing the revision petition.