B V RATHNIAH SETTY Vs. B VENKATA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition under S. 50 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the, 'Act') is by a, tenant against whom a decree for eviction was made by the, Munsiff and affirmed by the District Judge in appeal.

(2.) The demised premises consist of a vacant site in which the tenant had put up structures for carrying on certain manufacturing activities. The lease was for 7i years under the registered lease deed dated 13-5-1955. On 15-11-1965 the landlord issued a notice determining the lease. As the tenant did not vacate the premises, the landlord made a petition under S.21(l) of the Act seeking for eviction of the tenant on the ground specified in Cls. (h), (f) and (1) of that sub-section. The tenant resisted the petition.

(3.) The landlord's case is, briefly, as follows: He has been residing in his house adjoining the demised premises. That house is inadequate for his family. He wants to extend his house by constructing a building in the demised premises. Both the Courts below held that the landlord had established that he reasonably and bona fide required the demised land for his own occupation for the purpose of erecting a building therepn. On the question of comparative hardship, both the Courts below held that greater hardship would be caused by refusing a decree fox eviction than by granting sucn decree.