COL. W.E. SATYANARAYANA Vs. JANAKIAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri R.B. Sadasivappa, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri K. Balakrishna for R-2.

(2.) THE undisputed facts are that one Ekambaram the father of the petitioner was the owner of the property and he died leaving a will bequeathing his properties in favour of certain persons mentioned therein. The petitioner was working in Army and he retired as a Colonel and he is also a Law Graduate. He used to collect the rents from the respondents who are the tenants of the premises measuring 10'x10' on a monthly rental of Rs. 80/- where the 2nd respondent was running a barber shop. It is also alleged that subsequently, the whereabouts of the 1st respondent were not known and the police also reported that she was missing right from 1991. The petitioner after attaining superannuation filed a petition in HRC No. 10922/87 on the file of the Small Causes Court, Bangalore, under Section 21(1)(a) and (h) and Section 21-B of the Karnataka Rent Control Act (for short 'the Act') alleging that the respondent refused and neglected to pay the rent and the 1st respondent who is the tenant is a chronic defaulter and therefore, she is liable to be evicted under section 21(1)(a). It is also averred in the original petition that he was running a management consultancy under the self employment scheme and had taken his office at No. 5/8 Infantry Rd., Bangalore on a monthly rental of Rs. 1,000/-. He also started his business in the said rented premises in the name and style of M/s S.S. Enterprises Consultancy and therefore, he requires the schedule property for running his business S.S. Enterprises Consultancy. Subsequently, he got the petition amended wherein he admitted that he has given up that business and being a law graduate he wants to open his Law Chamber along his wife who is also a practicing Advocate. Further, the petition premises is required for his daughter who is an MBBS Graduate and she wants to have her clinic in the premises, etc. He also further contended that he being a retired army officer, he is entitled for the occupation of the premises under Section 21-B of the Act as he had attained superannuation. However, R-1 has not filed any objection statement as her whereabouts by then were not known and the notice was published in the paper, it was subsequently held to be sufficient. She remained absent. The 2nd respondent who is said to be her son filed his objections resisting the claim of the petitioners. He has denied that the requirement of the petitioner is either bonafide or reasonable. That the petitioner is not entitled for possession of the property under Section 21-B of the Act. Besides that, he has also alleged that his family is depending on his earnings and this is the only source of income with which he is maintaining his family. In addition to that he has also denied the relationship of landlord and tenant. After holding enquiry, the learned Court below by its Judgment has held that the petition is maintainable. The petitioner is not entitled for an order of eviction under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act. The requirement of the petitioner is reasonable and bonafide. Hardship would be caused to the respondents and ultimately held that the petitioner is not entitled for an order of eviction under Section 21(1)(h) of the Act and also under Section 21-B. Consequently, he dismissed the petition. Being aggrieved by this order dated 24.2.94, the petitioner preferred this Revision Petition.

(3.) IN so far as the claim under Section 21-B is concerned without any further discussion, it can be held that the from a reading of Section 21-B it is clear that the section is applicable only for a residential premises and not for a non-residential premises. In this case the schedule premises is a non- residential premises where the respondent is running a barber shop. Therefore, I hold that the Court below has rightly held that the petitioner cannot invoke Section 21-B of the Act. That ground also need not be gone into in this petition.