B PUTTAMMA Vs. C V RAMANA IYER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are three revision petitions under Sec.50 of the Mysore Rent Control Act, 1961. The petitioner in all the three cases is the owner who is a lady. The respondents are the tenants. These three revision petitions arise out of HRC.Nos.315, 317 and 316 of 1964 on the file of the First Munsiff, Bangalore. HRC.Nos.316 and 317 relate to two shops on the ground floor and HRC.No.315 relates to the first floor of the premises in which a hotel is beng run by the tenant. The landlord filed eviction petitions under S.21(1)(j) of the Mysore Rent Control Act, 1961 "in each of the three cases and the contents of the petitions are almost identical except for the schedule. Common evidence was recorded in HRC.No.315 of 1964 and common orders have been passed by the lower Courts. The trial Court held that the petitioner had established that the premises were reasonably and bona fide required by her for the immediate purpose of demolishing them and for new construction. On appeal by the tenants, the lower appellate Court reversed the finding of the trial Court and dismissed the petitioner's applications. The petitioner has come up now in revision.

(2.) It is alleged in the applications of the petitioner that the premises is an old construction and the petitioner wants to effect reconstruction on modern lines; that the premises are reasonably required for the bonafide use by the petitioner for the immediate purpose of demolishing them, and for erecting a new buildng thereon; that the petitioner has obtained a licence for the erection of a new building from the Bangalore City Municipal Corporation. In their objection statement, the tenants contended that the premises is not an old construction, but is a very strong and solid structure and denied the petitioner's allegation that they are reasonably required for the bona fide use by the petitioner for the immediate purpose of demolishing them and for reconstruction. They also contended that the petitioner demanded higher rents, that the tenants refused the same and that circumstance has led to the filing of the eviction petitions.

(3.) The lower appellate Court held that the case made out by the petitioner in her pleading was that the building has become old and that, therefore, it requires demolition and reconstruction, whereas the evidence shows that the building is not in such a condition as to require demolition. The lower appellate Court relied on the evidence of RW.1, examined on behalf of the tenants, who is a retired Sub-Engineer. He inspected the suit building and prepared the sketch, Ex.R.1. He deposed that the whole building is constructed with wire cut bricks and that the building can remain strong for another fifty years. This evidence was relied on by the lower appellate Court to come to the conclusion that the building is not in such a dilapidated condition as to require immediate demolition. This finding as to the condition of the building is not seriously challenged. But it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the approach of the lower appellate Court is erroneous and that it is not necessary for the petitioner to prove that the building is in such a dilapidated condition as to require demolition under S.21(1)(j) of the Act.