LAWS(KAR)-1990-10-8

P K UPADHYAYA Vs. A VENKATESH

Decided On October 08, 1990
P.K.UPADHYAYA Appellant
V/S
A.VENKATESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) these petitions are by the tenants. All the respondents are the landlords, who filed several eviction petitions against the tenants under Section 21(l)(h) and (j) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 ('the act'). For the sake of convenience the landlords are referred as the petitioners and the tenants as the respondents.

(2.) the petitioners are brothers. According to them they desire to demolish the existing structure and put up a new structure in the area covered by the respective schedule premises and also another part of the same area, which is already in their possession. In the eviction petitions it is stated that the petitioners require the premises to put up a construction and to run a lodging section. According to the petitioners, they intend to put up a multistoreycd building after the demolition of the existing structure and the requisite permission for the plan was being sought from the corporation and the corporation has sanctioned the plan and granted the licence. The petitioners also assert that they have sufficient financial resources to put up the construction and already they are having a cash of Rs. 1,60,000/- and the balance required for the construction can be raised by obtaining loan. It is also stated that in order to make the premises more profitable they are seeking eviction and put up the construction. The petitioners also say that the existing structure has developed cracks in the wall and the foundation. In a few of the eviction petitions, the petitioners have stated that in addition to the lodging Section they want some space to run their sanitary and plumbing business.

(3.) the respondents are all carrying on non-residential activities such as the business of running a hotel, selling honey, hair-cutting saloon etc. The petitioners have examined on their behalf one of them as P.W. 1 and a retired p.w.d. supervisor as p.w.2. The trial court accepted the case of the petitioners under clause (h) or Section 21(1) of the act. The trial court has found that the landlords have established their requirement to demolish the existing structure and intend bona fide to use the newly constructed building to run a 'lodge' in the first floor and other business activities of the petitioners in the ground floor. In view of this requirement of the petitioners being for their own use and occupation, the question of considering the case under Section 21(1)(j) did not arise. The existing building is in an area covering 40% of the entire site and the entire site measures 80' x 100'. There is no dispute that 60% of this site is vacant. There is also no dispute that the site is a corner site. The main road called 'hosur road' is on the front and a road having 40 width is on one side goes by the side of the site. The financial capacity of the petitioners has been amply established in these cases. The cash deposits in the banks also have been proved to assure the capacity of the petitioners. The petitioners also have other properties. Therefore there cannot be any doubt about the resources of the petitioners to put up the proposed building. According to the petitioners, who are 7 brothers, it is necessary to provide job to some of them who are not employed elsewhere and for this purpose they have decided to open a lodging section. Two of the brothers are contractors and therefore the ground floor shops are required for the purpose of godown in respect of the contract business of the two brothers. One of the brothers, who is doing sanitary works requires a godown for his business. One room is required for the office purposes of the petitioners. These are the requirements of the petitioners, according to the learned trial judge.