AMRNILAL KESHAVAJI Vs. TULASI BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition is by the tenant of the non-residential premises. The Respondent-land lord filed an eviction petition before the trial Court under clauses (f) and (h) of Section 21(1)of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (shortly called 'the Act') seeking eviction of the tenant (petitioner before this Court) on the ground that the schedule premises has been unlawfully sublet by the tenant and further the landlord required the premises for the business of her husband.

(2.) 1 n the eviction petition it was stated that the schedule premises is a part of a bigger building known as 'Ananda Bhavan Building'. It is situated in a commercial locality. The locality is quite convenient for the wholesale business in cloth and in fact, there is no other locality in Bangalore wherein wholesale business in cloth can survive. The landlady's husband Mohanlal at present has been carrying on wholesale business in cloth along with his brother Anandamal in the 1 st floor of the very building. Difference of opinion has arisen between the two partners and therefore landlady's husband has decided to come out of the firm to start his own business. The requirement is therefore both bonafide and reasonable. It is further stated that the tenant had sublet the premises in favour of one M/s. Praveen Fabric without the authority and consent of the petitioner. The tenant is not at all carrying on the business in the schedule premises, according to the landlady. In view of the difference of opinion between Mohanlal and Anandamal, Mohanlal is suffering great hardship and he cannot carry on the business along with his brother and that he intended to carry on the cloth business in wholesale.

(3.) In the objection statement filed by the tenant he stated that he has been carrying on retail business in cloth in the schedule premises and the said shop faces Chickpet road which is a locality wherein only retail business is being done. The schedule premises is not suitable for wholesale business in cloth. There is a general denial of other averments made in the eviction petition and it is also stated that landlady's family members were already carrying on large scale business in various trade names and are having lucrative business with several properties and therefore financially there was no necessity for her to start further business. I n para-6 of the eviction petition the landlady has specifically mentioned about the subletting of the premises by the tenant in favour of M/s.Praveen Fabrics. In para-6 of the objection statement the tenant has stated thus;