INDRAMAL KULURAM JAIN Vs. TEJARAJ DEEPCHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only legal argument advanced against the legality of the order under revision namely, the order of the District Judge, Dharwad, in CRP (HRC) 132/82 on his file, is that the District Judge as well as the Court of the first instance (Munsiff) erred in passing an order of partial eviction of a composite tenancy of the up-stairs portion of the building in which the petitioner is the tenant in respect of the entire premises. The building itself is owned jointly by two relatives. One of the joint owners sought eviction of the tenant in the upstairs portion (non- residential) in respect of portion of the premises occupied by the tenant who resisted the eviction petition on the ground that his tenancy for the whole of the upstairs portion cannot be served as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Miss S. Sanyal v. Gyanchand, AIR 1968 SC 438. That matter was decided by the Supreme Court regard being had to the provisions contained in the Delhi Rent Control Act. What fell for consideration there was a ground corresponding to clause (h) of sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Karnataks Rent Control Act. Having regard to the provisions there they held that the need for the premises to be established by the landlord for the whole of it and the tenancy of the tenant cannot be split up. Normally in regard to composite lease that would be the position which this Court cannot ignore. But the difference lies in the fact that the Karnataks Rent Control Act under sub-section (4) of Section 21 mandates the Court to direct partial eviction if it does not cause hardship to the landlord. That the comparative hardship of the tenant and the landlord if a decree for eviction is passed or a decree for eviction is not passed has to be considered by the Court before passing an order of eviction. In other words, the Legislative policy under the Karnataka Act is that in all cases of eviction under the Act, partial eviction if it satisfies the need of the landlord, it would be more than enough for eviction orders to be passed under clause (h) of sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Act. In the instant case, what had been asked is partial eviction in respect of a non-residential premises. If that is all that the landlord required, then the Courts should have no hesitation to further the legislative policy. I do not see any error of law as contended.

(2.) THE petition is, therefore, rejected.