PUKARAJ GANESHMAL SHAH Vs. SANGAWWA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these petitions both the tenant as well as the landlord are before this court challenging the order dated 10-2-1992 passed in HRC No. 108/1994, Parties would be referred to as per their ranking before trial Court. HRRP 341/1977 is filed by Sri Pukhraj Ganeshmal Shah hereinafter referred to as the tenants and HRRP 350/97 is filed by Smt. Sangawwa and Sri Sangappa hereinafter referred as the landlords. One Sri Channamallappa Yalamali, owner of the shop premises bearing No. CTS 787, situated at Kirana Bazar, Bijapur filed an eviction petition seeking for eviction under Section 21(1)(c)(f) and (h) of the KRC Act. He died in the year 1980 leaving behind his wife. Smt. Sangawwa and son Sri Sangappa. The tenant took the suit premises on lease in his individual capacity to run the Kirana business in the name of Ganeshmal Pukhraj. But without the consent and knowledge of the deceased Channamallappa tenant has let out the premises to Shah Ganeshmal Pukhraj a partnership firm. The tenant has built permanent structures in the schedule premises without the consent contrary to law. The owners have also sought the premises in question for their bona fide use and occupation. With these pleadings they wanted an eviction of the premises by the Court.

(2.) THE same was opposed by the tenants. Sri Pukhraj Ganeshmal Shah adopted the statement filed by the other respondents. According to them the petition lacks bona fides. It is filed with a narrow motive of seeking an eviction. The premises was leased to the firm by late Sri Channamallappa. It is stated that the rent has been enhanced from time to time from the year 1949 during which the lease deed came into existence. They have denied the structural alterations of erection of permanent structures as contended by the landlord. They say that deceased Channamallappa leased out the petition premises to the third respondent consisting of ground portion of the premises with a shop, a room and a godown which was provided with a bathroom W.C. and a water tap. The accommodation in the first floor consisted of a kitchen, a hall and two rooms. This accommodation exists from the date of the commencement of the lease and no alterations are made by the respondents. They also deny the ground taken by the landlord with regard to bona fide use and occupation.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Learned Senior Counsel for the tenant Sri S. Tarakaram, took me through the order of the learned trial Judge and the revisional Judge. He contends that both the Courts below have misconstrued the scope of Section 21(1)(c). The first argument is that there is some confusion in the minds of both the Courts with regard to Section 21(1)(o) while considering Section 21(1)(c). The second argument is that the construction is pre-61 and Courts cannot order eviction in terms of 1961 Act. Even otherwise according to the counsel the plea of limitation would support their case.