ASHA SINGHVI Vs. SHA MANIKCHAND . C

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a tenant's revision petition against eviction order made under Section 27 (2) (a) (g) (b) (r) (o) and Section 31 (1) (b) and (c) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 (for short, 'the Act').

(2.) I have heard Sr.Rameshchandra, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri.Kashyap N.Nayak for first respondent and Sri.Bhuvan K.P., learned counsel for second respondent. I have been taken through evidence and the impugned order.

(3.) THE learned counsel for petitioner relying on the judgment of Supreme Court reported in AIR 2008 SC 539 (in the case of K.N.Anantharaja Gupta ­vs- D.V.Usha Vijaykumar) would submit that, when the respondent/ landlord had sought for eviction on the ground that his sons would carry on business in the schedule premises after the same is altered or reconstructed, the court must be satisfied that: