PARVATAMMA Vs. SAMPATH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner calls in question the validity and correctness of the order dated 11-6-1999 passed in H. R. C. No. 513 of 1998 on the file of the x Additional Small Causes Judge, Bangalore dismissing the eviction petition filed under Section 21 (1) (h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (the 'old Act' for short ).

(2.) THE petitioner filed the petition for eviction under Section 21 (1) (h)of the old Act alleging that she requires the petition premises for purpose of running a cycle shop by her son Srinivas. The Court below came to the conclusion that the petitioner's need was not real on finding that the petitioner let out the premises adjoining the petition premises in the year 1997 after it fell vacant. The reasoning adopted by the Court below is that if really the petitioner needed the premises to run the cycle shop business, she would have certainly occupied the vacant premises instead of letting it out again. In that view of the matter, the Court below dismissed the eviction petition. Being aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the petitioner has come up in this revision.

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