C LAKSHMIPATHI Vs. BHANUMATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision under Section 50 (1) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act (the act' for short) is directed against the order dated 2-9-1992 of the chief judge of small causes at Bangalore city in h. r. c. No. 1971 of 1933 dismissing the landlord's eviction petition under Section 21 (1) (a) and (h) of the act. Revision petitioner herein is the landlord and petitioner in the eviction proceedings. Respondents are tenants. I shall hereinafter refer to them as they are arrayed in the eviction petition for the purpose of convenience.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts are: petitioner-deceased laxmipathi is the owner of the premises bearing No. 15, poornaprasad compound, high grounds, race course road, Bangalore city. There are more than one tenements in the said compound and the petitioner lives in one of the portions, other portions are leased to several other persons. It emerges from the pleadings and as well from the evidence that one kantamma, sister of the deceased petitioner -laxmipathi lives in one of the portions. Malathi, eldest daughter of the deceased petitioner-laxmipathi lives in another portion, another person by name c. Mahesh is in occupation of the ground floor of the premises and the first floor of that building is leased to the respondent herein. Eviction petition under Section 21 (1) (a) and (h) was filed on 7-7-1983, at the first instance against one Smt. Bhanumathi, daughterin -law of deceased manibhen k. Sodha. Subsequently, Smt. Manibhen k. sodha and her son ramesh k. Sodha, husband of bhanumathi were brought on record as r-1 and r-3. Bhanumathi is thereafter described as r-2. Subsequently, during the pendency of the proceedings the petitioner -laxmipathi, manibhen k. Sodha and bhanumathi died, legal representatives of laxmipathi are brought on record.

(3.) PETITIONER's case as it stood at the first instance is that the premises in question was leased to bhanumathi on a monthly rent of rs. 250/-, she was irregular in payment of rent and became due for the period from 1-4-1982 to 30-6-1983 in a sum of Rs. 3720/- being the rent for 15 months. Petitioner therefore sent statutory notice as required under Section 21 (1) (a) of the act and despite service of notice bhanumathi failed to reply and did not pay or deposit the arrears of rent. petitioner further pleaded that the accommodation available to him in the premises in his occupation was not sufficient and he required the leased premises as additional accommodation. In elaborating the requirement it is pleaded that he has 5 daughters and a son living with him, 4 of them have attained majority, one of them is a graduate in law and intends to practice by setting up her office in the premises in question. the other daughter by name uma completed her chartered accountancy and intends to practice as chartered accountant, the place is suitable for establishing her office, but the accommodation available is totally insufficient. The only son satish is a graduate in b. Com. And intends joining law and after completing law, joins the legal profession and intends to practice with his sister P. W. 2-kum. Viju. Thus, it is pleaded that there being 8 members in the family, available accommodation is not sufficient and therefore leased premises is required as additional accommodation.