KEMPAIAH Vs. LINGAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant-landlord prayed for eviction of the respondent-tenants on the ground of his bona fide personal requirement within the meaning of Section 21(1)(h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). He submitted that he had a large family and was residing in a rented premises. He intended to convert the entire premises, in the occupation of the respondents-tenants and some other tenants, into one portion by making suitable alterations. It was further contended that the respondents were in arrears of payment of rent.

(2.) The trial Court allowed the petition holding that the appellant required the premises for his bona fide use and occupation but in revision filed by the respondent-tenants, the order of the trial Court was set aside vide the common order impugned in these appeals. The appellant submits that the High Court was not justified in allowing the revision petitions and setting aside the order passed by the Trial Court allegedly without looking into the fact that the entire premises in question was to be made as one unit as per plan Exhibit P-8. It is further contended that the High Court was not justified in holding that there existed discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses produced by the appellant or that he had no reasonable bona fide requirement of the premises in occupation of the respondent-tenants. The conclusions arrived at by the High Court are termed to be not used upon the evidence led in the case and the rejection of his prayer for eviction is causing great hardship to him. It is further submitted that the findings of fact arrived at by the Trial Court could not be disturbed by the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Section 50 of the Act provides :

(3.) It has been held in Bhoolchand vs. Kay Pee Cee Investment, (1991) 1 SCC 343 ) that the revisional powers of the High Court, under the Act, are wider than the powers conferred upon it under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The High Court is not precluded to appreciate the evidence for arriving at the conclusion regarding the alleged reasonable bona fide requirement. We do not find any fault in the judgment of the High Court in so far as the scope of its powers under Section 50 of the Act is concerned.