LAWS(KAR)-1981-11-2

M NARASIMHA BHAKTA Vs. JAYANTHILAL GOKULDAS

Decided On November 05, 1981
M.NARASIMHA BHAKTA Appellant
V/S
JAYANTHILAL GOKULDAS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since common questions of law and facts are involved in these petitions they were clubbed and heard together.

(2.) Jayantilal Gokuldas, first respondent in CRP No. 1813 of 1979 and respondent in CRP No. 2220/79, (hereinafter referred to as the landlord) is the owner of a building known as 'Jayant building' situated in the 13th Ward of Man galore Town. That building consists of a number of shop premises. In one of such premises (bigger in size) a business concern known as 'Adarsh' used to carry on (is even now carrying on) business of dealing in cloth of M/s. Mafatlal Group of Mills. The business concern 'Adarsh' belongs to a firm. The landlord's wife, daughter in-law, and other relations are partners of that firm. The 1st petitioner in CRP No. 1813/79, Narasimha Bhakta, is in occupation of two portions (more fully described in the application filed against him by the landlord) of Jayant building as a tenant and is carrying on business in the name 'Subhas Trading Company. He is carrying on business of purchasing and selling of Tobacco and Beedi leaves in the said premises. Another shop premises of this building is under the occupation of Dr. Joseph Zakharia as a lessee. He is said to be running a Clinic of his in this premises.

(3.) In the year 1969 the landlord filed three applications in the Court of the Munsiff, Mangalore, South Kanara District, for eviction of Narasimha Bhakta, Dr. Joseph Zakharia and another U. S. Nayak. Nayak was in occupation of one of the adjoining premises as a lessee. The applications against Narasimha Bhakta and Dr. Zakharia had been filed under Clauses (h) and (p) of sub-section (1) of S. 21 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (the Act) and were on two counts, the first one being that the premises were reasonably and bona fide required by the landlord for occupation by way of an additional accommodation by the aforesaid firm, 'Adarsh' concern ; the secondly that these two tenants had acquired vacant possession of suitable buildings. All these tenants resisted the landlerd's claim and denied the averments made in the petitions filed against them.