H HANUMANTHAPPA Vs. M KRISHNAMURTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) these revision petitions arise out of proceeding initiated by land lord under clauses (h) and (p) of proviso to sub-section (1) of section 21 read with section 21-a of the Karnataka rent control act numbered as hrc 1758/83 wherein the trial court negatived the reliefs under clause (h) of proviso to sub-section (1) of section 21 of the act read with section 21-a of the act sought by the landlord and allowed the relief sought for under clause (p) of proviso to sub-section (1) of section 21 of the act. Aggrieved by the order, both the tenant and as well as the landlord have preferred these revision petitions.

(2.) c.r.p. no. 3571 of 1988 is filed by the tenant aggrieved by the order passed under clause (p) of proviso to sub-section (1) of section 21 of the act. C.r.p. no. 4860 of 1988 is filed against the order passed under clause (h) of proviso to sub-section (1) of section 21 of the act. One of the questions raised by the tenants relates to interpretation of clause (p) of proviso to sub-section (1) of section 21 of the act (of part v).

(3.) section 21. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract no order or decree for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made by any court or other authority in favour of landlord against the tenant. Provided that the court may on an application made to it make an order for the recovery of possession of a premises on one or more of the following grounds only namely, clause (p) reads: "that the tenant whether before or after the coming into operation of this part has built or acquired vacant possession of or been allotted, a suitable building". Therefore it is the decision of the court as regards the happening of one of the events contemplated under clause (1) which is determinative of the matter and not the intention of the tenant in bringing about the happening of the event. Clause (p) lays down an independent condition under which a landlord becomes entitled to possession inspite of the fact that he may not require the premises for his own use and occupation. This clause gives landlord an absolute right to obtain possession when the tenant, has acquired vacant possession of or has been allotted a suitable building. But when the landlord requires the premises for his own occupation and the reasonable accommodation is available for occupation, we have to consider All the circumstances including the question whether other reasonable accommodation is available for the landlord or the tenant while coming to the conclusion of comparative hardship.