CHUNILAL B SHAH Vs. SHANTHA KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A. V. SRINIVASA Reddy, J. , made the following:

(2.) OF that there could be no doubt that this legal battle was fought passionately and bitterly, at times the parties going for each other's jugular veins the tenant taking the lead in this regard by filing an application under Section 340 (2) read with Section 195 (l) (b) of the Cr. P. C. for holding a preliminary inquiry as to the commission of an offence punishable under Sections 193 and 209 of the IPC by the landlord, followed closely by a similar application by the landlord for the said same relief against the tenant both of which I would dispose of in the course of this order. But, first things first, I would address myself to the core dispute in issue between the parties. During the interregnum between the filing of the revision and its final hearing because of the unlucky turn of events during which phase she also lost her daughter, for whose benefit the premises was sought by her, the respondent-landlord who had succeeded both under clauses (h) and (p) of Section 21 (1) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 ("the repealed Act", for short), had perforce to give up her claim under clause (h) of Section 21 of the repealed Act and having done so, the benefit of eviction ordered under section 21 (l) (h) is no longer available to her and she could only defend in this revision the eviction order obtained by her under clause (p) of section 21 (1) of the repealed Act.

(3.) THE premises in question is the residential premises situate in the ground floor of No. 12, 5th Main, Gandhinagar, Bangalore-9 and the petitioner has been the tenant of the premises since 1964. Gandhinagar area is a busy commercial hub hut this does not appear to be the primary reason why the parties are going at each other hammer and tongs. That there appears to be some bad blood between the parties is quite palpable from the manner in which this litigation is being fought. The respondent-landlord set up the case under clause (p) of the repealed Act in the Court below on the ground that the petitioner-tenant and his family members are owning properties at Bangalore and, therefore, he does not require the premises and that she is entitled to an order of eviction under clause (p) of Section 21 (1) of the repealed Act. The Court below framed an issue on this aspect of the case at issue (3) which reads thus: