MYAGERI Vs. SRINIVASA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition is filed by the tenant against an order of eviction made under Section 21(1)(h) of the Karnataka Rent Control 'Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act'). For the sake of convenience the parties herein are referred with reference to their ranking in the trial Court - i.e., the landlord is referred as the petitioner and the tenant as the respondent.

(2.) The respondent has been the tenant in respect of the schedule premises since about the year 1969. The petitioner is a hotelier by profession, who at present is residing in a portion of the building wherein he is carrying on the hotel business in partnership with his elder brother. According to the petitioner, even though the premises - was constructed in the year 1969 he did not shift immediately because he was living with his mother in the hotel building. The petitioner further states that in the year 1976 the petitioner and his elder brother constructed another hotel building called 'Janardhana' which was completed in the year 1979 and in that connection he had incurred certain loans. Therefore, he borrowed a sum of Rs. 10.000/- from one Seshappa, who was his relative and was in Government Service. At that time he executed a usufructuary mortgage of the schedule premises. The said Seshappa was in need of a residential house and took the schedule premises on mortgage hoping to evict the respondent and occupy the same. Accordingly he filed an eviction petition, but during its pendency he was transferred. Thereafter the petitioner redeemed the usufructuary mortgage deed in January 1983. According to the petitioner the residence where he is residing at present (for the sake of convenience it is referred sometimes as part of the hotel building in this order) is integrally connected with the other portion wherein the hotel business is being carried on in the name and style of 'Udupi Sri Krishna Bhavan' along with his brothers. The family of the petitioner consisted of himself, his wife, 3 children and two domestic servants. The eviction petition states that the hotel business of Sri Krishna Bhavan has expanded considerably and requires more accommodation for its proper functioning. The stretching of the hotel activities to the residential portion is narrated in para-7 (though the meaning of this para is subject matter of some controversy between the parties). The petitioner also stated that the locality wherein he is residing at present is a very busy commercial locality and there is no privacy in the residential portion because of the location of the hotel in the same building and the present accommodation is very inconvenient for his relatives and friends to visit. In para-8 the various aspects of the environmental problem are stated. The petitioner also pointed out that because of these circumstances and the need for additional accommodation for the hotel business the petitioner has to shift his residence and the schedule premises is required by the petitioner bona fide and reasonably. He also refers to the notice issued to the respondent seeking vacant possession. The usual plea regarding hardship also is stated.

(3.) The respondent questioned the correctness of the averments made in the petition. According to the respondent the present eviction petition is nothing but continuation of the earlier proceedings initiated by Seshappa to evict him and the petitioner has several other premises in Bangalore and that the earlier transaction with Seshappa itself was a camouflage to get the respondent evicted somehow. The respondent even denied the assertion that the petitioner has been carrying on hotel business at Chickpet in the name and style of Udupi Sri Krishna Bhavan. The expansion of the business also is denied. The requirement of more accommodation for the , hotel by the petitioner is disputed. Though there is an elaborate counter, the substance of the matter is that the respondent has questioned the reasonableness and bona fide nature of the claim of the petitioner.