(1.) This is a revision petition by the tenant under S.50 of the Mysore Rent Control Act, challenging the order of eviction made by the trial Court and affirmed by the District Judge.
(2.) The application for eviction was filed uudej S.21(1)(a) and (h) of the Act. The landlady has stated that the monthly rental payable by the tenant is Rs.22-50, but she has not produced any evidence to corroborate much less to lend credence to such a self-serving statement. The tenant has stated both in his counter and in his evidence that the rent payable by him is Rs.15 per month and he has been paying the same throughout. The trial Court said that the rent payable by the tenant was Rs.15, but it granted the order ot eviction on the ground that the premises are reasonably and bona, fide required by the, landlady. In the appeal preferred by the tenant, the learned Dt. Judge has affirmed the finding on the question of bona fides and reasonableness of the landlady. But he said that the rate of rent payable by the tenant was not Rs.15 but Rs.22-50 per month. He proceeded on the ground that it ia for the tenant to establish that the rate of rent is not Ra.22-50 and not for the landlady to establish that the ra,te of rent is Rs. 15. The approach made by learned Judge seems to me is wholly erroneous. When the landlady has come forward with a statement that the rate of rent is Rs.22-50, it is for her to establish the same. The trial Court was, therefore, right in stating that the rent payable by the tenant was Rs.15.
(3.) Adverting to the question of reasonableness and, bona fide requirement of the landlady, I find that there is a, concurrent finding. It is not shown to have been vitiated by non-consideration of any relevant documents or consideration of any irrelevant material. Equally so, the finding on the question of comparative hardship under S.21(4) of the Act. There is no material for me to come to any different conclusion from the one reasonably reached by both the Courts below.