M R RAMACHANDRA Vs. SHANTAKUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision under Section 50 (1) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 is preferred against the order dated 11th June 2001 passed by the Court-below dismissing the petition filed under Section 21 (1) (h)and (d) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961.

(2.) THE petitioner-landlord filed the petition for eviction of the respondent-tenant from the petition premises situate at No. 69, 6th main, Chamarajpet, Bangalore on the grounds that the premises is required by him for his own use and occupation and that the tenant is guilty of conduct which is a nuisance or annoyance to the adjoining or neighbouring occupiers. The case of the petitioner under Clause (h) is based on his requirement of the premises for purpose of 3. 1997 Crl LJ 2014 *hrrp No. 597/2001 dated 8th October 2002 expanding the computer training centre that is established by him. The Court below disbelieved the case of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner did not produce any documentary evidence during the trial to show that a computer training centre is being run by him. On finding that the space available now with the landlord is sufficient for the convenient stay of himself, his family and for running the computer training centre the Court-below answered the question of comparative hardship in favour of the respondent-tenant. The case putforth by the petitioner under clause (d) was also disbelieved by the Court-below relying on the B report filed by the police in regard to a complaint of nuisance filed by the petitioner against the respondent. Being aggrieved by the order of dismissal passed by the Court-below the petitioner has come up in this revision.

(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. the respondent despite service of notice have not put in their appearance in this revision.