KG MAHALINGAIAH Vs. C R RAJAGOPALA SETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition calls in question an order passed by the II Additional District Judge at Mysore, whereby among other revisions, rent Revision No. 51 of 1994 filed by the petitioner has been dismissed and the order of eviction passed by the HRC Court upheld.

(2.) THE respondent-landlord is the owner of a two storied building situate in the City of Mysore consisting of 7 shops on the ground floor and residential portions on the first floor. H. R. C. Nos. 231 to 234 of 1985, 74 and 76 of 1989 were filed by the landlord against the tenants in occupation of different parts of the premises on different grounds including the ground that the building in question was in mud masonry more than 100 years old which had developed cracks requiring immediate demolition and reconstruction. The I Additional Munsiff at Mysore who tried the said cases disposed off the same by a common order dated 8-12-1993 directing vacation of the tenants in occupation of the premises for the reasons set out in the order and granting to the tenants 4 months' time to vacate. Insofar as the petitioner herein was concerned, the Trial Court passed an order of eviction under Section 21 (1) (j) of the karnataka Rent Control Act on the ground that the landlord reasonably and bona fide required the premises for purposes of demolishing the old building and reconstructing a new one in its place. While doing so, the trial Court referred to and relied upon the statements of the tenants including the petitioner herein in which they had stated that if the landlord after reconstruction was ready to give a shop to each one of them, they were ready to vacate the premises in their occupation. The trial Court in this connection observed: "r. Ws. 1 to 3 in their evidence have not seriously disputed about the reasonable and bona fide requirement of the petitioner regarding two shop premises. They have stated that if the petitioner is ready to give one shop to the respondent in H. R. C. No. 231 of 1985 and one shop to the respondent in H. R. C No. 233 of 1985, they are ready to vacate and deliver possession of the petition premises to the petitioner".

(3.) THE offer made by the petitioner to vacate the premises not withstanding the order of eviction passed by the Trial Court was questioned in Rent Revision No. 51 of 1994 before II Additional District Judge at mysore. The Revisional Court upon appreciation of the material on record came to the conclusion that the landlord was a rich businessman who had sufficient means to meet the cost of the proposed reconstruction of the old building. The Court referred to the documents produced by the landlord and found that he had sufficient funds deposited in Kannikaparameshwari Co-operative Bank. It also relied upon the statement made by petitioner herein to the effect that the landlord was financially sound and had the capacity to reconstruct the building after demolition. The fact that the building in question was more than 100 years old constructed in mud masonry, the walls of the building had developed cracks and that the entire building was in a dilapidated condition was noticed by the Revisional Court and relied upon while upholding the order of eviction passed by the Court below. It also referred to the fact that the landlord had got a plan sanctioned for the proposed new building and a licence to put up the construction. Suffice it to say that upon reappraisal of the evidence on record, the Revisional Court came to the conclusion that the order of eviction made by the Trial Court against the petitioner herein was perfectly justified as the landlord bona fide required the building for demolition and reconstruction. Rent Revision No. 51 of 1994 was accordingly dismissed along with other rent revisions preferred against the orders passed by the Trial Court. The present revision petition assails the correctness of the above order.