K N SARASWATHAMMA Vs. SARALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition filed under (?the repealed Act? for short) the petitioner-landlord prays for setting aside the order dated 6. 11. 1998 passed in h. R. C. No. 1493/96 by the XVIIIth Addl. Small Causes Judge, bangalore, dismissing the eviction petition filed under Section 21 (1) (h) of the Act.

(2.) THE facts necessary for the disposal of the revision, briefly stated, are as under: the landlady filed the petition under Section 21 (1) (h) of the repealed Act for eviction of the respondent on the ground that the accommodation that was available with her was not sufficient for her requirement. The son of the petitioner examined himself as p. W. 1. The respondent examined herself but did not submit to cross-examination by the petitioner. The Court-below came to the conclusion that the requirement of the petitioner is reasonable but proceeded to dismiss the petition on the ground of lack of bonafides on the part of the petitioner. The conclusion reached by the Courtbelow on the question of bonafides was accentuated by the fact that the first and third floor portions fell vacant even before filing of the petition and the petitioner failed to occupy them despite her need to have additional accommodation. Thus, though the Courtbelow concurred with the petitioner on the question on reasonable requirement of the petition premises it, nevertheless, dismissed the eviction petition. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision is filed.

(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel on both sides.