GANESH MAL Vs. ZEENATHUNNISH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) REVISION filed against the order of the principal munsiff, Mysore in hrc No. 375 of 1986 and the order of the i additional district judge, Mysore in rr No. 1611 of 1995. The petitioner is the tenant. The respondent-landlord made an application for eviction of the petitioner-tenant under Section 21 (l) (h), (j) and (f) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961.

(2.) THE trial court, on the consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, rejected the claim for eviction under Section 21 (l) (h) and (f) and allowed the eviction under Section 21 (l) (j) of the Act, however giving a right of re-entry to the petitioner-tenant under sections 26 and 27 of the act. Being aggrieved by the said Order, the landlord preferred the revision before the district judge, Mysore who set aside the order of the trial court and allowed the petition under Section 21 (l) (h) and (j) of the act without any right of reentry for the tenant after reconstruction. Being aggrieved by the said Order, the present revision is filed.

(3.) THE bona fide and reasonable requirement of the landlord to demolish and to reconstruct the premises is concurrently upheld by the trial court and as well by the first revisional court. However, there is divergence with regard to the claim under Section 21 (l) (h) of the act. The trial court does not outrightly hold that there is no need for personal requirement for the occupation by the landlord for his office and for the purpose of running a clinic by the wife of the landlord who is examined as P. W. 2. The trial court, on the basis of the sanctioned plan produced, finds that there are two more shops available after satisfying the need of landlord therefore directed that two shops to be relet after the reconstruction.