ASHOKA MOTORS Vs. H IBRAHIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE proceedings which has given rise to this revision petition had a chequered career.

(2.) I have heard Mr. R. B. Sadashivappa, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner-tenant and Mr. Vishwanath Shendge, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-landlord.

(3.) FEW facts are necessary to appreciate the rival contentions of both the Counsels. The respondent-landlord initiated eviction proceedings against the petitioner-tenant under Section 21 (l) (h) of the Karnataka rent Control Act, 1961. The case of the landlord is that the petitioner-tenant is in occupation of the shop premises bearing No. 80 (old No. 97/8), Commercial Street, Bangalore, on a monthly rent of Rs. 165/- and the tenancy commences from 1st of each month of English calendar. The eviction proceedings were initiated in HRC No. 8498 of 1980. The said eviction petition was contested by the tenant, inter alia, contending that the requirement of the landlord is neither bona fide nor reasonable. Suffice it to say the Trial Court dismissed the said eviction petition by its order dated 10-2-1987. The landlord dissatisfied with the order passed by the Trial Court, carried the matter in a revision in CRP no. 2588 of 1987. This Court accepted the said revision petition and remitted the matter to the Trial Court for fresh disposal by its order dated 7-1-1992 After the matter was remanded, the Trial Court took up the matter for fresh consideration. The Trial Court once again on assessing the evidence came to the conclusion that the landlord had failed to prove the ingredients of Section 21 (l) (h) of the Karnataka Rent control Act, 1961. The Trial Court dismissed the eviction petition by its order dated 5-8-1993 holding that the requirement of the landlord was neither reasonable nor bona fide and also recorded a finding that the allegation in respect of sub-lease was not proved. The said order of dismissal was once again challenged by the landlord in HRRP No. 987 of 1993. This Court allowed the said revision petition and remitted the matter to the Trial Court for fresh disposal once again by its order dated 9-6-1998. The observation made by this Court while remitting the matter reads as follows: