C N ANANTHRAM Vs. B J GANPATHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Special leave granted.

(2.) The question in this landlord's appeal, directed against judgment and order of Karnataka High court, is if the High court was justified in setting aside the finding of the court of Small Causes on bona fide need and comparative hardship of the appellant and dismissing the application under S. 2l (1 (h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, for eviction of the respondents.

(3.) Eviction of the respondents, the two brothers, lessees, of Plot Nos. 71 and 72, since 1971, for a period of ten years, for manufacturing furniture and electronic goods respectively, was sought after expiry of the period because the appellant who was only a sharer in family business needed these plots to shift and start his own business. Claim was founded on sub-clauses (7 and (p) as well but the order, for eviction, was passed by the trial court under sub-clause (h) only. In the High court sub-clause (1 was not relied on by either of the parties. And so far as sub-clause (p) was concerned, it was conceded on behalf of appellant that it was not available against one of the tenants. Consequently the appeal fails or succeeds on proof or otherwise of requirement of sub-clause (h) only.