SANJAY ALLOYS PRIVATE LIMITED BANGALORE Vs. V RAMAKRISHNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is the landlord and has filed this petition challenging the order dated 18-6-1996 passed in HRC No. 1468 of 1992 on the file of the additional Small Causes Judge, Bangalore City. He filed this petition hrc No. 1468 of 1992 seeking for bona fide use and occupation of the premises on the ground of a Corporate Office in the schedule premises. In the petition it is stated that the landlord is a Company having its office at New Bamboo Bazar, Bangalore. He purchased the property by way of a sale deed dated 4-11-1991. The respondent who is a tenant was paying Rs. 500/- per month as rent. After the purchase the respondent has attorned the petitioner as a landlord and was paying rent regularly. Petitioner-Company was dealing in iron and steel and of two branches, one situated at Palamaner in Chittoor District and the other at No. 2, kadugondanahalli, Bangalore 45. It is employing more than 100 employees and are working at the factory and it has no place to set up a corporate Office. With a view to have a suitable Corporate Office, Company wants to demolish the existing structure and put up a new construction in its place. For want of accommodation in the factory premises and with a view to streamline the office work it requires this premises. It has sufficient finance. The respondent is affluent businessman and has acquired its own premises. Petitioner requires the premises for occupation under Section 21 (1) (h), (j) and (p) of the KRC Act.

(2.) THE matter was contested. Respondent denied the averments with regard to the factual grounds in the statement filed before the Court. Evidence was recorded and one Sri Jayaprakash Gupta was examined for the petitioner and one Sri Ramakrishna was examined for the respondent. Exs. P. 1 to 4 were marked before the Trial Court for the petitioner and Exs. R. 1 to 18 for respondents. The Trial Court framed five issues in para 6 reading as under:

(3.) HE answered Issues 1 and 3 in the negative and ruled that points 2 and 4 does not survive for his consideration in view of the negative answer given insofar as points 1 and 3 is concerned. In conclusion the trial Court dismissed the petition. This is challenged by the landlord before this Court. The petitioner is represented by Sri Rajanna, learned counsel along with Sri Udaya Holla, the learned Counsel. Respondent is represented by Sri R. L. Narasimha Murthy, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri P. S. Rajagopal, learned Counsel for the respondent.