NALINI SILKS Vs. S.R. VYASA MURTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is filed by the tenant Nalini Silks challenging the order dated 31.8.1992 passed in HRC No. 1995/92. Sri S.R. Vyasamurthy, landlord filed a petition under Section 21(1)(a)(f) and (h). Landlord has stated that he is the owner of a composite commercial building located in Malleshwaram, Bangalore. The premises consists of three different tenements in first and second floor and the petitioner-tenant is occupying the first floor premises on a monthly rental of Rs. 475/- per month. Sri D. Ravindranath was running the business in the name and style of Nalini Silks as a proprietory concern and was issuing cheques in favour of the landlord towards monthly rental in his capacity as proprietor of Nalini Silks. He was also running several educational institutions in Bangalore such as Sunder Education Society, SES Play House, SESE English School etc. He was frequently approaching the petitioner to seek his permission to sub-let the schedule premises. But as the schedule premises was required by the petitioner for the bonafide use and occupation of his wife and daughter, the petitioner had refused to give permission to respondent to sub-let the premises. Landlord has further stated that the respondent did not pay the rents regularly. Subsequently he came to know that the said premises has been sub-let in favour of one Smt. Ranimanorama, R-3 before the trial Court by the petitioner.

(2.) LANDLORD further stated that his wife with the assistance of his daughter is running a tailoring shop at No. 132, Margosa Road, Malleshwaram. It has become a nuisance in the residential house because of lack of privacy due to frequent visit of the customers. He wants to shift the tailoring business to the petition schedule premises. He also wants to start business in handicraft in addition to tailoring business. With this allegation petitioner has sought for eviction under Section 21(1)(a)(f) and (h) of the Act.

(3.) PARTIES examined witnesses in respect of their respective cases. The petitioner examined three witnesses in addition to producing 10 documents. Respondents examined two witnesses and produced eleven documents. The learned Judge after hearing the parties, framed six points for his consideration in para 4 of the impugned order. He has answered points Nos. 1 and 2 partly in affirmative and partly in negative, points 3 and 4 in affirmative and point No. 5 in the negative. In the result, he allowed the petition under Section 21(1)(h) of the Act and dismissed under Section 21(1)(a) and (f) is concerned. Respondent-landlord has not challenged the said finding. It is only the tenant-petitioner who has approached this Court in so far as Section 21(1)(h) is concerned.