S RAMA RAO Vs. C SUBBIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under S.50 of the Rent Control Act by the tenant is directed against the order made, by the Dist. Judge at Mandya in HRCA No.1 of 1971, whereby the order of the Munsiff, Srirangapatna in HRC No. 5 of 1969 was set aside and a decree for eviction as prayed for by the landlord passed.

(2.) The premises in question is being used for a commercial purpose by the tenant.The case of the landlord has been principally based on two grounds which fall within the purview of Cls. (b) and (h) of S.21(1) of the Rent Control Act. The trial Court rejected the petition of the landlord. In appeal, the learned Dist. Judge accepted the case of the landlord on both the grounds pleaded. Therefore, he made a decree for eviction against the tenant.

(3.) In regard to comparative hardship, the consideration of which is made mandatory in view of S.21(4) of the Rent Control Act, the learned Diat. Judge approached the question on the assumption that the burden lay on the tenant to show that in case a decree for eviction is passed he was likely to suffer greater hardship. It is on the basis of this conclusion Sri T. J. Chouta, the learned Counsel fqr the petitioner, urged in the forefront of his ease that the learned Dist. Judge was clearly in error in the light of the principles enunciated in two decisions of the Supreme Court, the last of which is Phiraea Basmanji Desai v. Chandrakant N. Patel. On giving my careful consideration to the matter, I am clearly of the view that this contention deserves to be upheld. In this view, it is unnecessary for me to examine the other ground on which the order of eviction has been passed.