R ANANTHA RAO Vs. INDUMATHI ALIAS LAKSHMI BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a tenant's revision petition against the order passed by District Judge, Dharwar in HRC Appeal No.10 of 1971, affirming the order passed by the Additonal Munsiff, Hubli in HRC No. 196 of 1967. The respondent-landlord filed an application for eviction of the petitioner-tenant under Section 21(1) (a) and (p) of the Mysore Rent Control Act, 1961. It appears that the case under S.21(1) (a) was hot pressed in the Court below. The Courts below have, therefore, confined attention to the case of the petitioner falling under S.21(1) (p) of the Act. The said clause enables the landlord to secure eviction of the tenant, if the tenant, whether before or after the coming into operation of Part V of the Act has built or acquired vacant possession of, or been alloted, a suitable building. The case of the landlord is that the tenant has built a suitable premises for his residence in Vijayanagar colony in the city of Hubli. That building was built some time in the year 1960. The petition was filed on the 4th of September, 1967.

(2.) The Court of first instance, came to the conclusion that the petitioner has built a building which is quite suitable for his residence. Consequently, it made an drder for eviction against the petitioner. That order has been affirmed in appeal by the learned District Judge. Hence, this revision petition.

(3.) Shri P. R. Srinivasan, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the Court below was wrong in taking the view that the building built by the petitioner is suitable for his residence. It was urged that the premises in his occupation is situate in Keshavapur which is about 11/2 furlongs from the city railway station and that it is close to the centre of the city and to the schools and bazar. It was urged that Viiayanagar colony where the petitioner has built his building is a couple of miles away and that there are not adequate number of buses to connect the centre of the city and that it would be very inconvenient for the children of the petitioner to go to schools. It was also urged that whereas the peitioner was paying only a rent of Rs.45 in resppct of the suit premises, the premises built by him has been leased to two tenants for Rs.125 and Rs 25 respectively. Having regard to these circumstances, it was urged that though the petitioner has built his own building in Vijavanagar colony in the citv of Hubli. the same is not suitable for the residence of the petitioner. The expression 'suitable' has not been defined in the Act. According to the ordinary meaning given in the Oxford and Chambers Dictionaries, the word 'suitable' means, which is fitted for the purpose, appropriate to the occasion. The word 'suitable' is of such an amplitude that it includes within it several factors, the totality of which make the premises suitable. Though it is not possible to make an exhaustive enumeration of the factors which may be taken into consideration for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether a particular building is suitable for residence or not, it is clear that factors such as the nature and extent of accommodation, the type of building, the location, the facilities of communication are among others, important factors which have got to be taken into consideration. But, it is necessary to note that in this case the petitioner himself has categorically stated in his evidence that he built his own building for the purpose of his own residence. It may be noted that the petitioner is an Assistant Engineer. When the petitioner himself states that he built the building for his own residence, it must be assumed that he took into account all relevant circumstances which make the premises suitable for his residence. The circumstances narrated bv Shri Srinivasan are circumstances which indicate that the premises which is now in his occupation is more convenient than the premises which he has himself built. If the premises built by the tenant is suitable for his residence, the fact that the premises in his occupation as a tenant is more convenient or economical than his own premises does not afford a ground to resist the application of the landlord for eviction. Once the Court comes to the conclusion that the tenant has built his own building which is suitable, it has no jurisdiction to refuse to make an order of eviction.