JOHN MAHADE Vs. MARY ALIAS SHANTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) REVISION filed against the order of the ITI Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hubli, passed in HRC No. 181 of 1995 and of the I additional District Judge, Dharwad, in RR No. 140 of 1999 The petitioner is the tenant. The landlord/respondent made an application for eviction of the tenant under Section 21 (l) (p) and (j) of the Karnataka rent Control Act. It was the contention of the landlord that subsequent to the lease, the petitioner/tenant has acquired a suitable residential premises of his own in Adhyapaknagar, Hubli, and also contends that the petition premises is old. He requires to demolish the same and recons juct.

(2.) BEFORE Trial Court, the sanctioned plan is also produced. On considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court allowed the eviction on the ground of Section 21 (l) (p) and (j) of the Karnataka Rent control Act. In revision filed by the tenant/petitioner, the findings of the trial Court were confirmed granting eviction under Section 21 (l) (p) and (j) of the Act and dismissed the revision. Being aggrieved, the present revision is filed.

(3.) AFTER going through the averments in the main petition, I find that although in the relief column in para 12, there is no averment to seek eviction under Section 21 (1) (p) but however in para 5, there are clear averments to make out grounds for eviction under Section 21 (1) (p) of the act. The parties were fully aware of the contested facts and issues when the evidence is adduced. The petitioner is not taken by surprise in any manner in respect of eviction under Section 21 (l) (p) during trial. Merely because it is not mentioned in the final relief column about the ground for eviction under Section 21 (l) (p), the order cannot be assailed as a granting relief without pleading. In para 5 of the main petition clear and categorical averments are made. Therefore, the eviction under Section 21 (1) (p) is justified.