G A NARASIMHA MURTHY Vs. P N MURTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this revision petition filed under Sec. 50 (l) of the Karnataka Rent control Act, 1961 (repealed Act or old Act for short), the order dated 23-2-1999 passed by the Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore City in H. R. C. No. 826/94 dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner landlord under Sec. 21 (1) (d) and (h) of the Act, is under challenge.

(2.) THE petition premises comprising of two shops bearing No. 48, Journalist Colony, First Cross, Bangalore is owned by the petitioner. The petition under clause (h) was filed by the petitioner on the ground that the same was required for establishing a research centre for his son who is highly qualified medical Ayurvedic practitioner as he is carrying out his practice in a small and cramped room at No. 3/89. Bull Temple Road, Gavipuram, Bangalore. The petitioner also claimed that he is publishing a monthly periodical by name Ayugnana and also doing research work and publishing work which require the assistance of staff members. The petition premises is in a commercial locality and suitable for the petitioners son to have his research institute and for the purpose of publishing his periodical and for the sale of medicines and publications. The court below declined the relief sought by the petitioner on the ground that the claim made by the petitioner is neither reasonable nor bonafide and the requirement of the petitioners son would not be the requirement of the petitioner. Being aggrieved the petitioner has come up in this revision.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel on both sides. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he does not press the claim under Sec. 21 (1) (d) of the repealed Act.