RAJAGOPALA Vs. P REVANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petitition under S.50 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 ('the Act'), questioning the correctness and validity of an order of eviction made aginst the tenant. Revanna was a landlord. He filed an application for eviction of his. tenant, under S.21(1) (a) and (h) of the Act. But, he died during the pendency of the proceedings. His legal representatives were brought on record and they continued the proceedings. They are the respondents before me.

(2.) In the application for eviction, Revanna had stated thus :

(3.) Revenna died before the evidence commenced in the proceedings. His son who was impleaded as one of the legal representatives gave evidenct. He stated that the shop is required by him to continue his father's business and there is no other premises available to him. Believing that evidence, learned Munsift held that the landlord has proved that the shop is reasonably and bona fide required by him for his personal. occupation and if the possession is not given, it would cause him greater hardship. Those findings were affirmed by the District Judge in the appeal prefeirred by the tenant.