JOHN AUGUSTINE PETER MIRANDE Vs. N DATHA NAIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners in the revision petition are the tenants. Respondent is the landlord. Respondent filed an application for eviction of the petitioners under Section 21 (1) (c), (h) and (1) of the Mysore Rent Control Act, 1961, (hereinafter called the Act) for eviction of the tenants. The case of the landlord was that the premises are reasonably and bona fide required for his own occupation, for reconstruction and also on the ground that the tenants without the consent of the landlord has erected a permanent structure. The claim arising under Section 21 (1) (c) and (i) does not arise for consideration before this Court, inasmuch as, that even in the trial court the claim made under Section 21 (1) (c) has been given up and before this Court the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-landlord has clearly stated that he is not making any case based under Section 21 (1) (i) of the Act. The only claim that he is making is that he wants the premises for his reasonable and bona fide need and he will occupy it after reconstructing the building. Therefore, the question that arises for consideration is the claim made by the landlord under Section 21 (1) (h) of the Act.

(2.) Several contentions have been raised by the tenants and I do not propose to consider any one of the other contentions excepting the one i. e., as to whether the notice issued in the present case is valid or not. Before instituting the proceedings for eviction, the landlord gave a notice dated 17-3-1966 which is marked as Exhibit A-3 terminating the tenancy of the petitioners with effect from 15-5-1966 on the ground that the tenancy was a monthly tenancy and notice given was a valid notice.

(3.) The learned trial Judge upheld the claim of the landlord and passed an orded for eviction. This order passed by the learned trial Judge has been confirmed by the lower appellate Court.