S NARAHARI Vs. S PANKAJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE undisputed facts are that the first respondent is the wife and Respondents No. 2 to 4 are daughters of Sri C. B. Shankar Rao who was the owner of the property bearing No. 140, Margosa Road, malleshwaram, Bangalore admeasuring 100 x 45 ft wherein the petitioners of these two petitions are the tenants of the non-residential premises more fully described in the schedule and paying admitted quantum of rent. Sri C. B. Shankar Rao passed away in the Year 1989 leaving behind his wife and daughters as his legal heirs. The 4th respondent married one Sharkar Rao in the year 1991 and both of them are practicing advocates of this Bar. They are living in a rented house situated adjacent to the premises and running their law chambers from that residence. The respondent filed HRC No. 66 and 67/94 on the file of Small Causes Judge, Bangalore claiming possession under Section 21 (1) (h) and (j) of the Act alleging that the 4th respondent intends to renovate and remodel the property which are in occupation of the petitioners and to occupy the same for her residence and also to use certain portion as their Law chambers as they are living in a rented premises. It is also alleged that her requirement is both reasonable and bonafide. Besides that renovation and remodeling cannot be effected without the petitioners being evicted. As other premises are available within the vicinity, no hardship would be caused to the tenants. The tenants have denied all the averments in toto and in specific terms by iiling their written objections. They further alleged that if they are evicted, greater hardship would be caused and no bonafide or reasonable grounds are made out by the respondents herein. According to the tenants, it is only a ruse to oust them from the premises for gaining more rent. It is also the case of the tenants that a room vacated by one of the petitioners herein on the ground that the landladies require the premises for their occupation was let out to one Sri Naik for higher rent notwithstanding the fact that the respondents should have occupied the same. After examining the evidence, the Court below by separate orders allowed the petitions under Section 21 (1) (h) and dismissed the claim of the respondents under Section 21 (1) (j) of the act. Being aggrieved by these two orders, the tenants preferred these two petitions. However, the landladies admittedly have not questioned the order of dismissal passed by the Court below under Section 21 (1) (j) of the Act.

(2.) AFTER having heard the learned advocates appearing for therespective parties, this common order is passed as the claims of the landladies in both the petitions are similar and the main grounds urged by the tenants in these petitions are identical.

(3.) IT may also be mentioned here that the respondents filed thesepetitions initially claiming ihat the petition schedule premises are required by the 3rd respondent for running a shop with the assistance of son of the 2nd respondent. It is also father alleged that her husband who is Major in the Army intends to settle down in bangalore and they have no other premises for their occupation, etc. Subsequently, the petitions were amended alleging that the petition schedule premises are required by the 4th respondent for renovating and remodelling the same to make it suitable for her residence and Law chambers for herself and her husband who are practicing advocates. The premises are ground door portion situated at Margosa Road, Malteshwaram which is one of the business center. There are two shops admeasuring 10 x 13 ft and another room situated in the upstairs measuring 4 x 5 ft. It is also an admitted fact that there is a staircase directly leading from the road to the first floor of the building which is in possession of one Sri Naik. The respondents claim that he is only occupying tne room as a licence and not as a tenant, etc. A Commissioner was appointed and he submitted his report to the Court as per Ex. P2g. He also prepared a plan as per Ex. P3 showing the measurement of the property. The respondents have examined fourth respondent as PW-1 and one nagabhushan Rao as PW-2 to establish the Will executed by shankar Rao. Both the tenants have examined themselves as RW1 in each case.