ANDANUR BASAPPA Vs. ADHIKAR CHANNABASAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner in this revision petition is the landlord. He filed an application for eviction of the respondent, purporting to be under S.21(1) (g) of the Mysore Rent Control Act, 1961. The application was allowed by the learned Munsiff, Davangere. But, in appeal filed before the Court of the District Judge, Chitradurga, it was rejected. That is why the landlord has come up in revision before this Court under S.50 of the Mysore Rent Control Act, 1961.

(2.) In the application filed by the landlord, it was alleged as under:

(3.) In the objection statement filed by the tenant, the contention raised was that the premises was not let out to him on the ground that he was in the service of the petitioner-landlord, his case was that me premises was let out to him on a monthly rent of Ks.5 about 15 years back and it was not let out solely on the ground that he was under the employment of the landlord. The learned trial Judge recorded the evidence. The evidence placed before the Court, by the landlord was that the respondent was a clerk under him and that the premises was given to him and he was asked to pay a nominal rent of Rs.5 per month to cover the kandayam. It was further stated that the respondent was not working under him and is now working under one Mothi Doddapppa & Sons, and in place of the respondent, one Sannappa was employed as his clerk for whom there is no house and as such, the premises occupied by the respondent is required for his newly employed clerk. The landlord further refuted the suggestion made by the tenant that the premises was leased to the respondent as a tenant and that it was not given to him since he was his clerk. The landlord further stated that he has got other houses adjacent to the schedule premises and the rent of those premises is Rs.10 per month. It was also mentioned by the landlord that he was taking rent out of the salary whenever it was drawn by the respondent. Admittedly it is found that the respondent was working under the landlord for nearly 30 years and the premises was given to him only 15 or 16 years back.