CHAMPION INDUSTRIES Vs. PUKHRAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) this revision petition is filed by the tenant in respect of a non-residential premises situated in a building belonging to the respondents herein. The respondents filed an eviction petition under Section 21(1)(a), (h) and (i) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (shortly called 'the act'). It is not necessary to refer to the claim under clauses (a) and (i) as the same was not urged before me. In fact, the trial court also has rejected the claim of the respondents under clauses (a) and (i) and the respondents have not challenged the same. The respondents sought eviction under clause (h) of the act on the ground that they have been residing in a rented premises at murugesh mudaliar lane; they have been doing business in cloths, watches and spare parts at devatha market, chickpet and at another shop. Both the business premises are rented premises. There are 14 members in the family of the respondents. The original first petitioner in the trial court, pukhraj, is the father of petitioners 2 and 3, who filed the eviction petition. Pukhraj died during the pendency of these proceedings. Pukhraj and his wife were stated to be old and suffering from asthma. The entire building wherein the schedule premises is situated was purchased by the landlords in the year 1979 and thereafter they sought eviction of all the tenants who were in occupation of various portions for the self occupation of the landlords.

(2.) the schedule premises which is in the occupation of the champion industriesis in the ground floor. It is carrying on its business activities and therefore referred conveniently as a non-residential portion of the building. The entire building consisting of different floors. In the eviction petition the petitioners before the trial court have not stated specifically as to the portion which required by then for residence and the portion required for their business purposes. The relevant case regarding clause (h) is found at para 4 of the petition, which reads as follows:

(3.) the tenant questioned the claim of the landlords. However, the trial court hasfound that the landlords have made out a case for eviction of the tenant under clause (h) of Section 21(1) of the act. The trial court has held that the landlords' desire to carry on the business in their own premises and resde in their own building appear to be reasonable, and acceptable. Even though in the ground floor two tenants had vacated, the said portions are stated to have been occupied by the landlords by putting up a water storage tank and also to provide space for their workers to sleep. There is a small portion in the ground floor, which is occupied by one nagaraj who is employed in some hotel and according to the landlords the said nagaraj was willing to vacate any time and eviction petition was not therefore filed against him. During the pendency of these proceedings, it seems that the landlords have given a part of the ground floor obtained by them from other tenants to a private company for its office use and according to the landlords two of the eviction petitioners are the directors and the company belong to them and hence it was an act of self occupation by the landlords. The rear portion consisting of a room, dining hall, and kitchen is now under the occupation of another tenant and this portion is required for the occupation of pukhraj and his wife, i.e., the old parents of the other two original petitioners. I do not find much discussion in the order of the trial court on these various aspects. The trial court has proceeded basically on the assumption that whenever a landlord seeks possession of his own premises for self occupation, when he is carrying on his business in a rented premises and has been residing in a rented premises, the requirement pleaded by the landlord will have to be accepted as reasonable. But this principle looks to me too wide. In the instant case the nature of the requirement pleaded in the eviction petition is extracted above. In the evidence, one of the eviction petitioners i.e., jeshtmal was examined as p.w.i. nowhere in the entire evidence he states that the landlords intend to shift their business from the rented premises. Nowhere, be states that the landlords intend to start additional business or open a branch of their existing business. It has come out in evidence that the landlords are having cloth business in devatha complex and they are also dealing in watches in another rented premises. However, it is not their case that there is any pressure on them to vacate those rented premises. It was contended before me that the schedule premises involved in this case was necessary for the landlord to carry on non-residential activities. Again the plea is very vague.