PADMA RAMAMOORTHY Vs. M RAGHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a landlord's revision petition under S.50 of the Mysore Rent Control Act, 1961, against the order of the I Addl. District Judge, Bangalore in HRCA No. 129/1971, affirming the order of the Principal Munsiff, Civil Station, Bangalore, in HRC No. 194/1969. The petitioner who is the landlord of the suit premises situate at Bangalore, filed an application for eviction against the respondents-tenants under S.21(1) (a)and(h) of the Act, in the Court of first instance. The ground made under S.21 (1) (a) was not pressed. The case of the landlord is that her husband is working as an Accounts Officer in the Tobacco Co. at Madras; that he is due to retire somewhere in the year 1973; that he proposes to settle down in Bangalore; and educate their children. Her further case is that her eldest daughter is a crippled child and not in a position to attend herself. Tne respondents resisted the application inter alia contending that the claim of the petitioner was neither reasonable nor bona fide and this is a ruse to extract higher rent,. Tne Court of first instance after considering the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the requirement of the landlord is not bonafide. Accordingly the application was dismissed. The appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed. Hence this revision petition.

(2.) It was urged by Sri Janardhana, learned Counsel for the petitioner that the learned District Judge committed an error in holding that the requirement of the landlord is not reasonable and bona fide.

(3.) It is no doubt true that the landlord has not examined herself or her husband in support of her case, but on her behalf, her power of attorney holder has been examined in this case. The power of attorney holder is fully possessed of the relevant facts and he was therefore a competent witness to depose about the relevant matters in this case. It is because the landlord resides at Madras, it was considered more convenient to examine the power of attorney holder who knows all the facts. Having regard to these circumstances, the learned District Judge was in my opinion, not justified in drawing an adverse inference against the petitioner for not examining herself or her husband. The evidence of the power of attorney holder is to the effect that the petitioner's husband is due to retire in 1973. The learned District Judge has chosen to disbelieve the statement on the ground that no evidence has been produced to establish that the petitioner's husband is due to retire sometime in the year 1973. No material has been elicited justifying the Court to disbelieve the sworn statement of the power of attorney holder. I have therefore to proceed on the basis that the petitioner's husband is due to retire in the year 1973.