RAMA BALU MANGALE Vs. GAFAR BABALAL MULLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the concurrent findings of the courts below dismissing the eviction petition filed by the petitioner-landlord, since deceased, under Section 21-b (l) (a) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (the act' for short ).

(2.) THE petitioner-landlord filed the eviction petition seeking eviction of the petition premises bearing No. 31/2869a situated at shivajinagar, nipani. The petitioner was a member of the armed forces. He retired from service on 16-7-1976. On retirement the petitioner also procured a certificate from the commanding officer from his regiment to the effect that he retired from service as on 1-12-1976 and that he requires a suitable accommodation for himself and his family for residence. The said certificate is marked as ex. P. 2. On coming over to his home-town the petitioner filed the petition claiming that his family consists of himself, his wife, one major son, two minor sons and one minor daughter and the petition premises are required by him for the residence of himself and the family members and also for opening a kirana business. It was also stated by him in the petition that his family had no other income and that the pension he would receive would not be sufficient to make both ends meet. It was adverted to in the petition that one more eviction petition was filed against the tenant residing in the southern portion, the possession of which was yet to be obtained. A specific case was made out that even if possession of the southern portion is obtained, he would still be in need of the portion in the possession of the respondent herein.

(3.) THE respondent-tenant opposed the grant of eviction order by stating that the certificate produced by the petitioner is defective and, therefore, inadmissible as proof of the requirement under Section 21-b (1) of the act. The landlord is in possession of another premises owned by his wife and is presently residing there. That he does not require the premises for the bona fide use of himself and his family members. It was also contended by the respondent-tenant that the southern portion of the petition premises also belonged to the landlord and he has filed an eviction petition in respect of the southern portion also and that if an eviction is obtained in that case, it would more than meet the requirements of the landlord. On these grounds the tenant sought the dismissal of the eviction petition.