A M OBEDULLA Vs. S M SHAFT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter has come up for disposal before this Division Bench on an order of reference dated 15.3.1984 passed by the learned single Judge G. N. SABHAHIT, J. expressing his view that the decision in B. V. Rathniah Setty vs. B. Venkata Rao 1975 (1) Kar.L.J. 75 rendered by Chandrashekhar, J. (as he then was), appears to require reconsideration.

(2.) The undisputed facts are that the respondent is the owner of an open land not used for agricultural purpose. That is the schedule premises. He had leased that land to the petitioner- tenant for running a timber business. The petitioner-tenant, according to him, constructed a superstructure on that land, at a cost of Rs. 5,000/- and commenced running timber business. The landlord is also a timber merchant. He has been running his business in rented premises. According to the landlord, he is running timber business in one premises bearing No. 36 in Bamboo Bazar and owned by P.W. 3. According to the petitioner-tenant, the landlord has been running his business in four premises including the premises bearing No. 36. The landlord filed a petition for eviction making out a case that he reasonably and bonafide required the schedule premises foi erecting one storcyed building for running timber business by personally occupying it. The petitioner-tenant contended, that the requirement, put forth by the landlord is neither reasonable nor bona fide, as he has four premises in which he has been running his timber business. He also contended that the landlord was actuated by oblique motive of enhancing the rent which was originally Rs. 20/- per month and subsequently enhanced to Rs. 50/- per month. He has also in this connection contended that the landlord intends to increase the monthly rent to Rs. 200/-.

(3.) The petition filed by the landlord purported to be under Section 21(l)(h) and (j) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). An enquiry was held and an order of eviction was passed by the VII Additional Small Causes Judge, Civil Station, Bangalore in H.R.S. No. 6564 of 1980 (Old No. H.R.S. 599 of 1977). The Civil Judge, Ultimately concluded in favour of the landlord not only on facts but also on question of law holding that the case of the landlord fell within the ambit and scope of clause (h) of the proviso to Sec.21(l) of the act.