PADMASIVASWAMY Vs. U P VATSALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner-landlady who has failed in her effort to recover possession of the premises which she claimed for her occupation and the occupation of her daughter is calling in question the legality and correctness of the impugned order dated 10th October, 2001 passed by the Court below in h. R. C. No. 418 of 1998 dismissing the eviction petition.

(2.) THE petitioner sought eviction of the tenant under Section 21 (1 ) (h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 ('the repealed Act' for short) on the ground of personal requirement and for accommodating her married daughter who is residing in the maternal house situate at Koramangala. In the petition it was stated that she being an aged woman, her health condition is deteriorating day by day and she need the constant presence of her daughter beside her. It was also stated in the petition that her daughter Arundathi is not inclined to come and stay in the petition premises unless the portion in occupation of the tenants is vacated for her use and occupation. The petition allegations were denied by the respondents-tenants who took the defence that the petitioner's daughter is conveniently staying in a posh house and she or her family does not require the petition premises for their residence. The Court below held that the petitioner failed to prove her case for self-occupation as set up by her in the petition and, accordingly, dismissed the eviction petition. Being aggrieved the petitioner has presented this revision.

(3.) 1 have heard the learned Counsels on both sides.