t1.1e Court that the respondent is the
premises and that there is jural
V V:’.:}’.éo”1diord and tenant between the
V4partiee: ‘ 3.}: that the petitioner was in arreme
August 1997 ané that the respondent
petition premises for her bonafide use and
jolooopation and consequently, ordered eviction of the
petitioner under Section 27{2)(a) 85 (r) of the Rent Act.
H. R. R.P.No.24?(2606
2. W?*tether petitioner proves that respondent is
in arrears of rent as contended in the ~
potato’ ‘ rs?
3. Whether petitioner proves:—o fitatlt
required the petition scheduie
her bonafide use and oc::u,oa__ ‘
4. Whether petitioner is to an” of}
eviction under V the
Kamataka Rent now
under the pfoyisio_Iie”of’ ’85 (f) of
the Kamd:ak;e:3en:.A{e 239:2?” ‘
5’ \ . , .
On a detailed –cof1*sid.erm:io:i’vvot’–the evidence on record
and by re1yiz1g on at Exs.P.9 to R11,
We/’
Sh;/,__
P 4 0
(iv) {I16 wtjfiener herein shaii deposit the
arrears of rem: with the tria} Court agM(.1_ .V
shall also fiepcsit. the C11I’I’81’i'{ rents srafiithv A
ti*1et1’ialCouI’£; ‘V .
(v) the trial court is directed t§4disgpas;e’e:’t:§e X
evictian petition with-i:1._six éfirénths Tii*’£:rfi1 _v 1
the date Gf receiptf of”a_§:0p;§~*
this order;
The revision in the
above terms.
sd/..