SIDDAMMA Vs. AGARWAL AND CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a landlord's Revision Petition under Section 113 of the C.P.C. It is directed against the order of the I Additional District Judge, Dharwad, dated 6th October, 1982 made in CRP. No. 222/1979 on his file. The revision before the District Judge under Section 50(2) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was presented by the tenant who had suffered an order of eviction by the II Additional Munsiff. Gadag, in HRC. No. 44/1974.

(2.) The landlord moved for eviction of that tenant who was one among several other tenants in a composite building belonging to the landlord on the ground that the whole of the building was required to be demolished and reconstructed according to the plan he got sanctioned. That ground is available to the landlord under Clause (j) of Sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Act. The premises in question had been let out to the tenants for non-residential purposes. It will be useful at this stage to state that there is no serious dispute that the landlord had initiated proceedings against the other tenants of the composite building also and at the time of the passing of the order by the Learned District Judge, Dharwar, were said to be pending in one or the other stages contemplated under the Act.

(3.) The landlord is a lady. In the Trial Court she did not examine herself. She chose to remain outside the witness box. Her case was essentially spoken to by her husband and the power of attorney holder. Nevertheless, the Munsiff accepted the evidence for the landlord-petitioner and allowed the eviction petition specifying the time schedule for putting the landlord in possession of the premises and also directing the landlord to commence the work of demolition as specified in the order of the Munsiff. Aggrieved by that order, the tenant preferred the revision before the District Judge. The District Judge reversed the finding of the Munsiff on re-appreciating the evidence and dismissed the eviction petition of the landlord. Therefore, the present revision in this Court.