PANDURANG GANPAT AUNDKAR Vs. ANANT HARI GURAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) W.p. No. 7571 of 1987 has become this revision petition. Petitioner is the tenant residing in the premises hi question. Present proceedings Were commenced in the year 1976 by the respondent seeking eviction of the tenant under Section 21(l)(a), (h), (j) and (k) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1971 ('the act', for short). Premises is in chikodi toWn; monthly rent is rs.13/-. It is unnecessary to refer to the claim under other clauses, except the one made under clauses (j) and (k) because the trial court rejected the claim of the landlord under those clauses and directed eviction under clauses (j) and (k) of Section 21(1) of the act landlord did not challenge this finding. Tenant filed the revision petition under Section 50, Which Was dismissed by the district court hence the present revision petition under Section 115 of the C.P.C. by the tenant; the order of the district court is basically under Section 21(l)(j); it ordered: "the revision petition is dismissed. The revision petitioner-tenant is directed to hand over the vacant possession of the petition premises to the respondent-landlord Within three months from this day. The petitioner-landlord is directed to put up a neW construction Within one year from the date of taking actual possession of the petition premises from the respondent-tenant and after the completion of the neW building, the revision petitioner-tenant is entitled to get reasonable accommodation in the neW construction on the reasonable rental amount." Mr. VisvesWara, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that When a claim under clause (h) is rejected, there is no scope to order eviction under clause (j). In support of his contention, Dinanath and another v Gopala krishna (dead) by l. Rs., AIR 1990 SC 1355 Was cited. The said decision pertains to the interpretation of Section 21(1 )(1) and it Was said that: