K S NAGAMMA Vs. M P MANEKSHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner-landlord aggrieved by the order passed by the Chief judge of Small Causes, Bangalore dismissing the petition filed by her in h. R. C. No. 2472 of 1990 under Section 21 (1) (h) of the Karnataka Rent control Act, 1961 ('the repealed Act' for short), has presented the present revision petition.

(2.) THE petitioner is the absolute owner of the schedule premises which was given to the husband of the respondent-tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,200/- per month. After the death of the husband, the respondent-tenant continued in possession as tenant. The petitioner filed the petition under Section 21 (1) (h) of the repealed Act stating that the schedule premises is required by her for the use and occupation of her only daughter Ms. Rashmi, The respondent resisted the petition stating that her son along with his wife and children have gone abroad and are likely to return to India shortly. She also alleged that the petitioner has rented out the first and second floor portions of the same premises to companies for non-residential purpose. She has denied the claim of the petitioner that she requires the schedule premises for the use and occupation of her daughter. The Court below found that the petitioner failed to establish the requirement as pleaded by her and, accordingly, dismissed the petition. The order dismissing the eviction petition is impugned in this revision petition by the petitioner.

(3.) I have heard the learned Counsels on both sides.