M PADMANABHA SETTY Vs. K P PAPLAH SETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Mysore in Civil Revision Petition No. 1044 of 1962, filed under S. 17 of the Mysore House Rent and Accommodation Control Act, 1951 (Mysore Act XXX of 1951) - hereinafter referred to as the Act - whereby the High Court set aside the order passed by the III Additional District Judge, Bangalore. The III Additional Judge had set aside the order of the First Munsiff, Bangalore, who had directed the eviction of the tenant from the premises in dispute.

(2.) The appellant before us, Padmanabha Setty, hereinafter referred to as the tenant, was the tenant of a non-residential premises No. 281, Old Tharagupet, Bangalore City. The tenant had installed some machinery in the premises. The respondent, K. P. Papiah Setty, is the landlord. He had purchased the premises for his own use and occupation, namely, for the purpose of shifting his business which he was carrying on in a rented building to the premises in dispute. The landlord filed an application under S. 8 (3) (a) (ii) of the Act for the eviction of the tenant on the ground that he required the premises in dispute for his own use and occupation. It is not necessary to give the other allegations made in the application as both the First Munsiff, Bangalore, and the III Additional District Judge, Bangalore, have found that the landlord required the premises for his bona fide use and occupation, namely, for shifting his business from the rented premises to the premises in dispute. The III Additional District Judge, however, held that under Section 8 (3) (a) (ii) the landlord was not entitled to possession of the premises in dispute unless and until he was prepared to vacate the shops in which he was trading at the time. This finding of the learned Additional Judge was contrary to the decision of the Mysore High Court in S. G. Narayanappa and Bros. vs. A. N. Narasimhiah, 1962-40 Mys LJ 760. The landlord then filed a revision petition under S. 17 of the Act, and the High Court, following the decision in 1962-40 Mys LJ 760, set aside the order of the Additional District Judge. The tenant having obtained special leave, the matter is now before us.

(3.) Two points are raised before us:(1) that the construction put upon Section 8 (3) (a) (ii) of the Act by the Mysore High Court is erroneous and the construction put upon a similar provision by the Madras High Court in Thanappa Chetty vs. Govindaswami Naicker, AIR 1952 Mad 553, is correct; and (2) that the High Court was not right in setting aside the order of the Additional District Judge in a reversion under S. 17 of the Act.