MADRIRA GANAPATHY Vs. VOKKALIGAR MURUGAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is by the tenant preferred under S.50 of the Mysore Rent Control Act ('Act' for short). It is directed against an order made by the learned District Judge, Coorg, Mercara, an appellate authority under the Act, in HRC Appeal No.3 of 1971, whereby partial eviction of the suit premises was decreed. That was an appeal by the landlord directed against an order refusing the decree of eviction made by the Munsiff at Virajpet in HRC 39 of 1968.

(2.) The case of the landlord is, that the suit premises were leased to the tenant quite some time ago and the said premises were required for his bona fide use and occupation, the need in particular being that his children have to be accommodated for the purpose of conveniently carrying on their education, in certain educational institutions in Gonikoppal At present he is residing in a village by name Kalatamadu, which is said to be about 5 miles by road from Gomkoppal. The defence of the tenant is that there are no bonafides in the claim of the landlord and his requirement is also not reasonable. Although the landlord lives in a village as averred by him his children have been attending the educational istitutions like any other child of that village by walking across the fields by way of a short cut. Indeed his case is that none walks on the road for the purpose of attending schools. It is contended that having regard to the history of the relations between the parties as evidenced by certain Court proceedings and other personal transactions, it would be clear that the landlord is more actuated by a desire to secure higher rents than requiring the premises for the purpose stated. It is also contended that the balance of hardship was in his favour and against the landlord.

(3.) The learned Munsiff, came to the conclusion that there were no bona fides in the claim of the landlord and he was actuated by a desire to secure enhancement of rent and if a decree for eviction were to be made it would cause greater hardship to the tenant. He therefore refused to grant the decree for eviction.