RAMU Vs. C H RAMAKRISHNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) the landlord of the premises in question is the revision petitioner; his petition under Section 21(l)(h) of the karantaka Rent Control Act, 1961 ('the act' for short) seeking eviction of the respondent on the ground of landlord's requirement to occupy his own premises was dismissed by the trial court. According to the petitioner he has been residing in a rented premises and that his landlord has been pressing him to vacate the house occupied by the petitioner as a tenant. Petitioner was paying a rent of Rs. 2,250/- per month, to his landlord; the rent received by the petitioner from the respondent is also the same amount. The schedule premises is in the 2nd floor of the build ing owned by the petitioner. The ground floor and first floor are tenanted by another tenant who runs a hotel by name 'hotel guruprakash'; the 3rd floor has 14 rooms let out to school students. 'Hotel guruprakash' pays a rent of Rs. 6,000/- p.m. the ground floor and the first floor face the 10th main road, iv block, jayanagar, which is entirely a commercial locality, busy always with vehicular traffic. The 2nd floor (the schedule premises) and the third floor face the 28th 'a' cross, which is entirely residential. The third floor has 14 rooms and the said floor cannot be used conveniently as a residential house; the ground floor and the first floor were let as a single unit and the said unit also is not suitable for residence, as it is essentially commercial in nature facing the commercial road. The 2nd floor is having big drawing and dining halls, two bed rooms, a pooja room, store, bath and toilet rooms; according to the eviction petition, a part of the big hall can be easily converted into a bed room. Petitioner would occupy the 2nd floor after making requisite alterations. It is unnecessary to refer to other averments. Eviction petition was filed in october, 1987.

(2.) the respondent contended that he occupied the schedule premises on 18th november, 1989 on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,780/- and subsequently the rent was increased to Rs. 2,250/-; the alleged demand made against the petitioner by his landlord to vacate the premises occupied by the petitioner was not a genuine demand at all and therefore there was no need at all for the petitioner to seek respondent's eviction. The requirement of the petitioner was not reasonable, and bone fide, because the petitioner did not occupy the first floor; the 3rd floor also is convenient for his residence.

(3.) the plea that the petitioner is only a rent collector need not he considered, asit was no pressed.