ANTONY ANGELINE Vs. B VIJAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two revision petitions filed under Section 115 C.P.C. are directed against the common order dated 4-2-1985 passed by the learned District Judge D. K., Mangalore, in H.R.C, Civil Revision Petitions Nos. 131 and 132 of 1983 on his file. The facts leading to these revision petitions may be briefly stated as follows :

(2.) The landlord's plea before Munsiff was that he lived with his cousin ; that the total number of people living were 24: that he and 15 others were going to live in the property he purchased and therefore he wanted premises Nos. 313 and 314 as well for his occupation. He has spoken to these facts in his oral evidence on oath. What is sought to be made out to be material discrepancy in the oral evidence is that the cousin referred to in the pleading is a step-brother. His family consists of only himself, his wife and a child while the remaining 13 members are close relatives not answering to the definition of 'family' as defined under Section 3 of the Act nor dependant on him. Having regard to these facts, the learned Munsiff held in favour of the tenants conceding that the bonafides were not established by the landlord and that the vacant, premises was more than adequate for his needs i.e., the need of himself, his wife and the child. Aggrieved by the same, the landlord preferred two revision petitions against the. said common order of the Munsiff in the Court of the District Judge at Mangalore.

(3.) An attempt before the District Judge was made by the landlord to place additional material by way of an affidavit disclosing the details of the persons who were going to stay with him in the new premises if it was available to him, The learned District Judge did not take that additional material on record in the sense he has not relied upon that additional material to reach the conclusion and reversed the order of the Munsiff. The reasoning adopted by the learned District Judge was that the fact that the landlord had kept premises No. 335 vacant released in his favour by the Rent Controller ; the fact that he wanted to provide not only for his immediate members of the family but also for others who would also reside with him and to which fact he had spoken in the evidence tendered before the Trial Court on oath". That included besides his mother several other close relatives. He took the view that there was no bar under the Act for a owner to provide residence for others other than his immediate members of the family. He apparently construed the expression "his own use and occupation" occurring in Clause (h) Sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Act liberally to include all persons whom the landlord was to provide for along with himself. He did not give prominence to the assertion that the purchase of the house by the landlord was only an investment. He carefully analysed the evidence on record, such as the Commissioner's report, as to the type of the premises in respect of which the petitions had been filed and came to the conclusion that though the premises had 3 separate numbers was in fact under one roof and therefore capable of providing larger accommodation to a single family by very minor alterations.