KUMARAMALLAPPA Vs. S GOVINDA BALIGA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is filed against the concurrent findings of the Courts below rejecting the petition filed by the petitioner for eviction of the respondent-tenant under clauses (h) and (j) of Section 21 (1) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 ('the old Act' for short ).

(2.) THE petitioner-landlord filed the eviction petition on the ground that he requires the premises for demolition and reconstruction to set up his son in business. The landlord stated in his petition that his son is doing shandy business and for want of accommodation he could not establish a business. The petitioner-landlord also produced the approved plan and licence obtained from the Municipality to substantiate his claim under clause (j) of Section 21 (1) of the old Act. The tenant denied the claim of the landlord. He relied on the circumstance that the earlier petition filed under Section 21 (l) (h) and (j) of the old Act has been dismissed and the revision filed against the order of dismissal also met with the same fate and, therefore, the present eviction petition is barred under Section 45 of the old Act. The Rent Court dismissed the eviction petition on the ground that the same issue had previously arisen between the same parties and was substantially decided in a former proceeding under the Act. The Court below also concurred with the view expressed by the Rent Court on this point and on the point of requirement of the premises by the landlord as negatived by the Rent Court. Hence, the revision petition.

(3.) I have heard the learned Counsels on both sides.