A K VEERARAGHAVA LYENGAR Vs. N V PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent-land- filed an eviction petition against the appellant-tenant in relation to non-residential premises to run a Jewellery shop. He found:

(2.) Before us Mr. ATM Sampath, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently urged these two points. (1) The landlord has come only with an oblique motive because the appellant-tenant agreed to pay the enhanced rate of pagari; (2) In any event, inasmuch as one of the portions of the premises had fallen vacant during the stage of trial and admittedly the landlord had let out in favour of Krishan Das which is one of the grounds relied upon by the Rent Controller to hold against the landlord, that ground ought to have been dealt with by the appellant as well as the revision court.

(3.) We have given our careful consideration to the arguments. We are unable to agree with either of them. As regards the first ground there is not sufficient evidence against the other requirements of bona fide, namely the experience of landlord, his financial capacity and his readiness and willingness to start jewellery shop. This ground cannot validly be urged.