ANNAPPA MANJAPPA GUDIGAR Vs. AMARNATH VISHWANATH DHAKAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision raises a very interesting question of law though it is a short one. The facts leading to the Revision Petition under Section 115 C.P.C., may be briefly stated and they are as follows :

(2.) The petitioner in this Court is the landlord. He filed an eviction Petition in H.R.C. 4/77 in the Court of Additional Munsiff, Sirsi, seeking eviction of the Respondent-tenant from the residential premises occupied by him which the landlord owned. The landlord was a Bank employee who was due to retire in 1980. In order to settle down at Sirsi, his native place, he initiated eviction proceedings in 1977 itself stating the fact that he required the premises bona fide for his use and occupation soon after his retirement. The other ground urged by the landlord was that the tenant had sublet the premises. The tenant resisted the eviction Petition on the ground that the requirement of the landlord was not genuine and that he had not sublet the premises. On such pleas the Munsiff formulated the questions :

(3.) On the first question formulated, he found, there was no case made out by the landlord in regard to sub-letting. On the question of bona fide requirement, the Munsiff found on the evidence adduced before him that he required the premises bona fide. On the third question of comparative hardship, he found in favour of the tenant and therefore, he refused to order eviction under sub-section (4) of Section 21 of the Act.