BANDUSAB Vs. B SHAIK MAHBOOB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two revisions one by the landlord and the other by the tenant under Section 50 (1) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act (for short the Act) are directed against the order dated 22. 7. 1997 of XVIII addl. Judge, Court of Small pauses, Bangalore in HRC No. 2504/92. Hereinafter I refer to the parties as they are shown in the original petition.

(2.) PETITIONER initiated eviction proceedings both under Section 21 (1) (h) and (p) of the Act in respect of commercial premises bearing no. 1, 8th Cross Road, Swimming Pool Extension, Malleswaram, bangalore-3. It is undisputed that petitioner is the landlord and it was leased to the respondent on 17. 1. 1991 on a monthly rent of rs. 350. Respondent resisted the petition and after contest Trial Court on appreciating the evidence both oral and documentary and after hearing the parties, by order impugned refused eviction under Section 21 (1) (h) of the Act, directed eviction of the respondent under Section 21 (1) (p) of the Act and further directed the respondent to vacate and handover vacant possession of the premises within three months from the date of the order. Petitioner-landlord has questioned in hrrp No. 1437/1997 the order refusing to grant eviction under section 21 (1) (h) and the tenant in HRRP No. 1096/1997 has called in question the legality and correctness of the eviction order under section 21 (1) (p) of the Act.

(3.) BRIEFLY stated the facts are: Petitioner it would appear purchased the property consisting of several shop premises on 12. 10. 1987 and on 12. 10. 1989 leased one of the premises in favour of one Mohan on a monthly rent of rs. 600 and another premises to one Jugadish on 8. 3. 1990 on a monthly rent of Rs. 600. However, he retained possession of two other premises to transact the business in preparing and sale of beds. It would appear that there was certain vacant area on the eastern side of the premises and in that landlord put up another shop premises measuring 5 ft. east to west and 15 ft. north to south. He put up that shop for the purpose of expanding his business and it is stated that in between the premises in his occupation on the western side and the newly constructed shop, provided a door however, there was delay in getting certain machinery and in the mean time respondent approached him and persuaded him to lease the premises termporaritly for a period of atleast one year The accommodation that was available in the two premises was not sufficient and therefore for expansion of his business and in particular for installing ginning machine, it is stated he put up the shop in dispute. Petitioner agreed to lease for a temporary period for the reason that he could not get the ginning machine on time and therefore on 17. 1. 1991 he inducted the respondent on a monthly rent of Rs. 350 subsequently, he secured the machine and wanted the respondent to vacate and handover vacant possession but the respondent refused, he did not vacate despite repeated requests and a written notice is served on him. it is also averred that the respondent, an ayurvedic practioner has acquired other premises and continuing his profession there also and therefore he is liable to be evicted. It is therefore, petitioner filed eviction petition under section 21 (1) (h) and (p) of the Act.