P SURYANARAYANA Vs. K S MUDDUGOWRAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a landlord-tenant dispute wherein the landlady has sought for eviction of the tenant on the ground of bona fide requirement of the suit premises for her own occupation - by herself and by members of her family residing with her, under Cl. (h) of proviso to sub-section (1) of S.21 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter "the 1961 Act," for short). Admittedly, the respondent-landlady is a widow. She is also owner of the premises wherein the appellants are the tenants. The eviction petition was filed some time in the year 1985. The requirement as pleaded by the landlady is that she has two major sons and two minor sons. The occupation of the landladys family is weaving. One of the major sons was married, also blessed with a child and engaged in the family business. The second major son was unemployed and yet to be married. He was desirous of starting his own business but the premises presently in occupation of the landlady were not sufficient to accommodate any business activity of the second son. The other two sons were minor and did not have any place to study available within the premises in their occupation. The second of the major sons was to be married and the premises in occupation of the landlady did not have enough accommodation to allow occupation by the second major son as a married member of the family, inasmuch as his wife shall also have to be accommodated in the premises in occupation of the family.

(2.) It is not disputed that the tenanted premises, that is the scheduled house premises in occupation of the tenants are residential premises. The tenants in their written statement filed before the Rent Controller admitted the premises to be residential and in their occupation for residence.

(3.) The Rent Controller and the appellate Court found the requirement of the landlady not made out. The two Courts also examined the case from the point of view of comparative hardship as required by sub-section (4) of S.21 of the 1961 Act and arrived at a finding that if the tenant-appellants were directed to be evicted they would suffer greater hardship than the hardship which would be suffered by the landlady in the event of the eviction being denied.