ABDUL GAFFER Vs. H S SRINIVASA SETY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the tenant in a non-residential premises in the city of hassan, Karnataka, whereas the respondent is the landlord. The landlord filed a suit before the' Munsiff, Hassan for eviction of the appellant herein on the ground of bona fide need set up for his son, who wanted to start the business of chemist and druggist. It was contested by the appellant. The learned munsiff decreed the suit having found the need of the landlord as bona fide. Aggrieved, the appellant filed a revision under sub-section (2) of Section 50 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") before the District Judge, Hassan. Sub-section (2) of Section 50 reads as under:

(2.) The learned District Judge after considering the matter found that the need of the landlord was not bona fide and on comparative hardship he also found in favour of the tenant. Consequently, the revision was allowed and the judgment and order of the learned Munsiff was set aside. The landlord thereafter filed a revision before the High Court under Section 115 of the code of Civil Procedure. It is not disputed by the parties that the revision was maintainable under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Before the High Court, the appellant herein filed an application pleading certain subsequent events after filing the suit by the respondent. The subsequent event pleaded was that the adjacent shop to the premises in dispute, which was earlier occupied by Karntaka Bank, had fallen vacant and, therefore, the need of the landlord stands satisfied. The allegation pleaded by the tenant was disputed by the landlord. The High Court in exercise of revisional power after reappreciating the evidence found the need of the landlord as bona fide and the plea of comparative hardship was also found in his favour. However, the High Court, in view of the subsequent events pleaded by the tenant, set aside the revisional order and sent the case back to the trial court for inquiry into that aspect and consequently the revision was allowed. It is against the said judgment the tenant is in appeal before us.

(3.) This Court, while issuing notice, indicated as to why the impugned order should not be set aside being outside the scope of Section 115 of the code of Civil Procedure. Learned counsel for the appellant urged that it was not open to the High Court in exercise of revisional power under Section 115 to reappreciate the evidence and set aside the finding of fact recorded by the district Judge that the need of the landlord is not bona fide. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent stated that since the learned District Judge has not looked into the various aspects of the matter, the High Court was justified in interfering with this finding of fact recorded by the District Judge.