LAWS(SC)-2001-10-157

SIDDALINGAMMA Vs. MAMTHA SHOENOY

Decided On October 18, 2001
SIDDALINGAMMA Appellant
V/S
MAMTHA SHOENOY Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A decree for recovery of possession passed by the trial Court against the respondent has been reversed by High Court in a revision preferred by her. The aggrieved landlady has filed this petition seeking special leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution.

(2.) Leave granted.

(3.) The suit premises are situated in Rajaji Nagar, Bangalore. The appellant No. 1 is admittedly the owner and landlady of the premises and respondent is holding the same as a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 1100/-. Appellant No. 2 was joined as plaintiff because she used to collect rent for and on behalf of appellant No. 1. The respondent's eviction was sought for on the ground available under Section 21(1) (h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961. It is not disputed that there are eleven members in the family of appellant No. 1 and residing with her presently in a house situated in village Bellalasoor. In the petition filed on 25-2-1993 the requirement as set out in the petition was that appellant No. 1's husband was suffering from asthma and respiratory problems and taking oxygen regularly from the cylinder and for medical treatment he was frequently required to be taken to Bangalore from Bettalasoor, a village situated at some distance from Bangalore. The appellant No. 1 was having two sons and grand children living at the village with her and the grand-children were required to be shifted to Bangalore for better education. The accommodation in occupation of appellant No. 1 and her family members was too small and inconvenient for all the family members to reside in. It was also submitted that the respondent was running a beauty parlour and also an ice-cream shop. She was financially sound and able to secure alternate accommodation. The respondent would not suffer any hardship if she was required to vacate the suit premises and in the event of eviction being denied the landlord would suffer great hardship. Thus comparative hardship of the landlord was greater than that of the tenant.