S FAIYAZ Vs. NISAR AHMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner-tenant has presented this revision petition calling in question the validity and correctness of the impugned order dated 27th january, 2003 passed in H. R. C. No. 10191 of 1995 on the file of the V additional Small Causes Judge, Mayo Hall Unit, Bangalore allowing the eviction petition and ordering eviction of the petitioner from the petition premises.

(2.) THE respondent-landlord filed the petition in the Court below under Section 21 (1) (h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 ('the repealed Act' for short), on the ground that the petition premises is required for establishing his sons in the business of retail vending of clothes in which line of business they have good experience. In order to substantiate his case the landlord examined himself and also got examined one of his sons. Certificates showing the experience of his son in retailing of clothes was also produced from two ex-employers of his son. The tenant defended the eviction petition alleging that the eviction petition is simply a ruse to evict him from the petition premises for renting it again for higher rent and the requirement of the sons' as pleaded is not true. The court below on an overall consideration of the oral and documentary evidence produced in the case, allowed the eviction petition. The order of eviction passed by the Court below is impugned herein.

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