T ADIRAJIAH Vs. SHAH NATHIMAL SOKAL CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed against the order of the First Additional District Judge, Bangalore, in H. R. C. Appeal No. 97 of 1969, setting aside the order of the Principal First Munsiff, Bangalore in HRC.No.633 of 1963.

(2.) Petitioner before me is the landlord of premises bearing No. 886 situate in Chikpet, Bangalore, and this has been leased out to the respondent-tenant since about 40 years. The petitioner claimed eviction of the respondent under the provisions of S. 21(1) (j) of the Mysore Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) . He states in paragraph 3 of the petition that "The premises scheduled below is more than 100 years old; the same are reasonably and bona fide required by the landlord petitioner for the immediate purpose of erecting a new building after demolish ing the existing one; the petitioner has made all arrangements to do so and has obtained the Corporation licence and the approved plan...."

(3.) The contention of the respondent-tenant was that the building is not more than 100 years old as alleged by the petitioner, nor the claim made by the landlord-petitioner is reasonable and bona fide. It is found from the licence Ex. P-1 and Ex. P-13 that the petitioner and his two sons applied for the grant of licence for the construction of what is styled a 'market' in accordance with the plan Ex. P-2. It may be mentioned that the plan comprises three numbers, i.e. 886, 887 & 888. Premises No.887 belongs to one Nagaraj, grand-son of the petitioner, T.Adirajiah, Premises No.888 is owned by the second son of Adirajiah. The learned Munsiff held that the petitioner bonafide and reasonably requires the scheduled premises for the immediate purpose of demolition and such demolition is to be made for the purpose of erecting a new building in place of the premises sought to be demolished, and directed the respondent-tenant to vacate and deliver possession of the schedule premises within two months from the date of his order and also directed the petitioner-landlord to commence the work of the demolition within one month thereafter.