PASCAL LAZAROUS LOBO Vs. K SUNDARA SHETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition by the tenant under Section 115 of the Code of Civil procedure is directed against the order dated 1-2-1982 made by the District Judge. D. K., Mangalore, in Civil Revision Petition No. 133 of 1980, on his file, dismissing the revision petition of the tenant, on confirming the order dated 15-9-1980 made by the First Additional Munsiff, Mangalore, in HRC No. 62 of 1976, on bis file, allowing the petition of the landlord under Clause (j) of the proviso to Section 21 (1) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the Act').

(2.) The landlord sought for eviction of the tenant from the petition schedule premises under Clauses (j) and (1) of the proviso to Section 21 (1) of the Act, though during hearing he gave up the claim under Clause (1) of the proviso to Section 21 (I) of the Act. The landlord avei- red that himself and his wife purchased the petition schedule premises, among others, by a registered sale deed dated 19-7-1973 (Exhibit P-9) with the idea of putting up a Boarding & Lodging House therein. Since, however, the project invoIved consdierable expenditure, they found a Private Limited Company along with others styled as 'Hotel Sukanya Private Limited'. The Company was promoted by the present landlord and his wife. The Memorandum of Articles of Association is at Exhibit P-1. The landlord is the Managing Director of the Company for life. He has sought for eviction of the tenant for the construction of a Boarding & Lodging House by the Company of which he is the Managing Director, bona fide and reasonably.

(3.) The tenant resisted the claim. Inter alia, he contended the requirement of the Company was not the requirement of the landlord and. as such, the present landlord could not institute a petition for eviction of the tenant either under Clause (j) or Clause (I) of the proviso to Section 21 (1) of the Act. He also contended that the requirement of the landlord was not bona fide and reasonable.