M JAVERILAL Vs. N ACHALRAJ JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE revision petitions are disposed of by this common order HRRP no. 89 of 2000 is filed by the tenant and HRRP No. 140 of 2000 is filed by the landlord. During the course of this order, the landlord would be referred to as the petitioner and the tenant as the respondent.

(2.) TWO eviction petitions were filed in HRC No. 218 of 1997 and HRC no. 217 of 1997. HRC No. 218 of 1997 relates to the first floor and HRC no. 217 of 1997 relates to the ground floor. Both the eviction petitions were filed by the common landlord under Section 21 (l) (h) and (p) of the karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 corresponding to Section 27 (2) (r) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999. The learned Trial Judge recorded common evidence in both the eviction petitions as the parties to both the petitions were common. The learned Trial Judge on consideration of material on record granted eviction in respect of ground floor which relates to HRC No. 217 of 1997 against which the tenant has come up in revision in HRRP No. 89 of 2000. Insofar as HRC No. 218 of 1997 which relates to the first floor, the said eviction petition was dismissed and the landlord has come up in revision in HRRP No. 140 of 2000. The sum and substance of both the petitions and the statement of objections are common.

(3.) THE facts in brief can be stated in a nut shell as under: it is the case of the petitioner that he is the absolute owner of the property in question bearing No. 1 which is popularly known as rajendra Market, Avenue Cross Road, Bangalore. It is his case that the said property consists of five shops on the ground floor and three shops on the first floor. It is his case that at the time of filing the eviction petition he was carrying on business in textile in shop No. 7 in the first floor. So far as the other shops are concerned they are tenanted. The respondent in both the eviction petitions who is common is in occupation of shop No. 3 on the ground floor (subject-matter of HRC No. 217 of 1997) and shop No. 5 on the first floor (subject-matter of HRC No. 218 of 1997 ). The respondent has taken these two premises in question on a monthly rent of Rs. 300/- and Es. 225/- respectively. According to the petitioner, the tenancy is a monthly tenancy commencing from first of each calendar month. The petitioner would state that he has two sons, namely, Kantilal who is aged 25 years and Kishore who is aged 21 years. Shop No. 7 wherein the petitioner is carrying on textile business in the name and style of N. D. Cutpiece Centre" measures 10' x 13' and he has been carrying on the business in the said premises since several years. It is his case that the eldest son, namely, Kantilal has come of age and has also commenced his own business in textile under the name and style of maan International" in the said shop as he did not have any alternate premises to commence the said business. It is his case that he has been doing the said business of Maan International since five years prior to filing of the eviction petition. The petitioner requested the respondent to vacate the shop premises which is in occupation so that he can accommodate his first son, namely, Kantilal to carry on business in the said premises. It is his case that the business which is carried on by the first son has grown by leaps and bounds and it is impossible for him to carry on his business in Shop No. 7 where he is presently carrying the business. It is his further case that his second son, namely, Kishore has also come up of age and having completed his education proposes to start a business of his own. It is the case of the petitioner that both the business concerns cannot be carried on in the existing premises, namely, shop No. 7 and was seeking possession of shop Nos. 3 and 5 which are on the ground and first floor. He would say that the petitioner and his second son propose to carry on the business of textile independently in a separate premises so that the eldest son can have his own independent business to eke out his livelihood, foreseeing there might be clash or difference of opinion in future. In the circumstance, the petitioner being the father decided that his second son would carry on the business in the existing premises i. e. , shop No. 7 on the first floor. Since shop No. 5 is on the first floor and the second son also proposes to carry on the business in the first floor he sought eviction of the said premises on the ground that it would be easier for them to carry on the business in close proximity. Insofar as the premises on the ground floor, he would state that the first son Kantilal proposes to start business in textile. The alternate case made out by the petitioner is that the respondent has come in vacant possession of another shop premises at building No. 21, 2nd floor, Channarayaswamy temple Street, Ganigarpet, Bangalore, where he has been carrying on his textile business. According to him, the said premises is suitable for his business. In the circumstances he would claim that the respondent is also liable to be evicted under section 21 (l) (p) of the old Act. He has further stated that on an earlier occasion he had filed an eviction petition in the year 1994 in HRC No. 467 of 1994. Since one single petition cannot be filed in respect of two premises, an application was made seeking withdrawal of said eviction petition with liberty to file two eviction petitions on the same cause of action and the same was granted and he was permitted to withdraw the said petition. In these circumstances, the present two eviction petitions are filed by him seeking eviction.