NARAYANA GOVIND ANIKHINDI Vs. VENUGOPAL SITARAM SARDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is landlord's revision under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code and is directed against the order and decree dated 2.9.1983 passed by the District Judge, Bijapur, in Civil Revision Petition No. 33 of 1980 on his file. That matter came before him under sub-section (2) of Section 50 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961. The petitioner-landlord initiated eviction proceedings in the Court of the Munsif at Jamkhandi on the ground that the petitioner premises in question was required for demolition and reconstruction as the building was more than 100 years old and in the year 1974 in the month of October or thereafter, a portion of building's ceiling had collapsed.

(2.) IT would be useful to state the undisputed facts. In the interregnum following the collapse in October, 1976 and presentation of the petition by the landlord for eviction under the Rent Control Act in the Court of the Munsiff Jamkhandi, in July, 1975, there was some negotiation between the landlord and the tenant in the regard to the action one on the other should take. The tenant had suggested that the landlord should repair the building while the landlord wanted the tenant to vacate the building so that he may reconstruct the building after demolition. In fact, the averment of the landlord is that the brother of the tenant who had died sometime before the filing of the petition had assured the landlord that if six months time was given, he would vacate for the purpose of reconstruction and demolition. The tenant evidently resisted the eviction petition on the ground that the building did not require demolition and reconstruction, that the building was in good condition except that the roof had fallen due to the improper maintenance by the landlord and therefore, what was required was only the mere carrying out of the repairs which could be done even when that was in occupation.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has contended that the District Judge was in error in insisting upon the use of the words for the immediate purpose of demolition in the pleadings. I do not think that contention should be taken serious notice of Learned District Judge has done no more than follow a judgment of this Court dated 30.1.1968 in the case of Lidwine Mathias v. Madahava and another, 1968(2) Mysore Journal, 120. Clause (j) of the proviso of sub-section 21 of the Act reads :-