LAWS(KAR)-2003-7-97

A S SUCHITRA Vs. K RATHNAKARA RAO

Decided On July 25, 2003
A.S.SUCHITRA Appellant
V/S
K.RATHNAKARA RAO Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the dismissal of the petition filed by her for eviction of the tenant under Sec. 21 (1) (h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (the repealed Act for short), the petitioner landlord has preferred this revision under Sec. 50 of the repealed Act.

(2.) THE facts as pleaded by the petitioner in support of her case for eviction of the tenant, briefly stated, are: the petitioner is the owner of the petition premises which is rented out to the respondent tenant on a monthly rental of Rs. 3250/ -. She along with her husband are residents of Thippanahalli Estate, Chickmagalur. Her husband is one of the Directors of Ankush Builders Pvt. Ltd. , and office is situated at No. 15, Siddiah Road, Bangalore. The said company is engaged in the business of constructions and he being the promoter of the company is often required to be present at Bangalore. The wet weather in Chickmagalur does not suit her and she is suffering from bronchitis and often she comes down to Bangalore for treatment. During such visits she used to stay in her brother-in-laws house at Crescent Court, High Grounds, Bangalore. Of late after division in the family, differences have cropped up among the family members of her husband and it has become unpleasant to stay in their place whenever she comes down to Bangalore for treatment. The respondent is an affluent person and there would be no difficulty for him to get an alternative accommodation. Despite the several requests made in that regard the respondents has declined to vacate the house.

(3.) THE respondent besides denying the above averments pleaded by the petitioner in support of her case also took up the stand that the petitioner does not really require the premises for her own use and the eviction petition has been filed only in order to evict the respondent and rent out the premises for higher rent.