SAROJA DATTATREYA Vs. S R SUBBARAJAYYA SHETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the landlady and respondent is the tenant. The landlady filed eviction petition under Section 21 (1) (h) of the Karnataka rent Control Act seeking eviction of tenant on the ground that she requires the petition schedule premises for her bona fide use and occupation. Subsequently, eviction was also sought under clause (p) of Section 21 (1) of the Act on the ground that the tenant acquired another premises. The tenant resisted the claim of the landlady and sought for dismissal of the petition. Both the parties adduced evidence and produced the documents. Upon appreciation of the material brought on record, the Trial Court by its order dated 6-8-1999 dismissed the petition holding that the landlady did not prove her requirement and satisfactory evidence has not come on record to pass eviction order under Section 21 (1) (p) of the Act. The landlady has filed this revision against the said order.

(2.) SMT. Rajeshwari, learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that she has produced the voters list and the telephone bills to prove that the tenant was residing in another premises bearing No. 42, 8th Cross, II block, Jayanagar, Bangalore-11, but the Trial Court did not consider the same in a proper perspective. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent sought to justify the order under revision. He also submits that though LA. No. 15 was filed to summon one Nagaraj to prove the case of the tenant, the same was rejected by the Trial Court on the ground that summoning of the said person is not necessary. The Counsel prays for dismissal of the revision petition.

(3.) PERUSED the order under revision. So far as the rejection of the petition under Section 21 (1) (h) of the Act is concerned, no interference is warranted as there is no proper pleading and the evidence adduced in this regard is quite contradictory. The Trial Court has considered the claim of the landlady in great detail and rejected the same by recording its findings assigning valid and cogent reasons. Hence, this Court declines to go into that aspect of the matter.