M DEVARAJ Vs. VIJAYALAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a tenant's Revision Petition. The respondent-landlord filed an eviction petition under Clauses (a) and (h) of Section 21(1) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The trial Court found that the ground under Clause (a) did not arise for consideration and this finding is not challenged before me. Regarding the claim under Clause (h) it was found that the premises was sought by the land lady to enable her husband-P.W.1 to start a business in electrical appliances. At the time of eviction petition he was about to retire from I.T.I, and having regard to his experience the business in electrical appliances could be carried on by him after his retirement.

(2.) The tenant-petitioner is having his hair cutting saloon. According to him this premises was not suitable for the business for which) P.W.1 is claiming because it measures only 8' x 6'. It was further pointed out that landlady has other shop premises which has been let out in the same building where the present premises is situated. Nextly it was pointed out that there is a garage which has been let out to run a fair price shop to one Dayalan and the said premises belong to P.W.1. The contention of the petitioner-tenant was that the requirement of P.W J was not the requirement of landlady and the claim did not fall within Clause (h) of Section 21(1) of the Act. Consequently it was contended that the petition was motivated to evict the petitioner somehow, and earlier, an eviction petition was filed on the ground that the landlord's son intended to carry on the stationery business and this was dismissed in the year 1982 and within a few months the present eviction petition was filed. Petitioner further contended that, if genuinely P.W.1 intended to carry on the business he would have selected any other premises and would have sought eviction of some other tenant because those shops are more spacious than the present schedule premises. But cumulative effect of these factors, according to the petitioner, establish that the claim was not reasonable and bonafide but was a ruse to evict the petitioner.

(3.) The trial Court accepted the case of the respondent-landlady. Mr. Raju, learned Counsel for the petitioner, contended before me that sub-clause (h) was not at all applicable in this case because admittedly the requirement that is sought to be made out by the landlady was not her's but that of her husband. The husband is not dependent on his wife; admittedly he is independent of his wife. This is further indicated by the fact that he owns nearby shop premises let out to one Dayalan. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner Clause (h) can be invoked only in case the requirement of the landlord (including landlady) is bonafide or for the benefit of some economically dependent person. The learned Counsel referred to a decision reported in K.S. APPRAMEYA IYENGAR v. H.S. RAMASWAMY 1963(1) Mys.L.J. 592. The principle stated therein was that under Clause (h) the landlord in a proper case can seek an order of eviction even if the premises is not required by him personally but may be required for those economically dependent on him. The very principle stated herein does not support the learned Counsel for the petitioner. It is stated that an eviction can be sought if the requirement is of the member of one's family also. There can be no doubt that the husband is a member of wife's family,