RAMEGOWDA Vs. GOWRAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner is justified in submitting that the finding recorded by the Trial Court that there is a sub-letting of the premises is not valid in law. I have gone through the finding on Point No. 3 recorded by the Learned Trial Judge. Learned Trial Judge has nowhere stated that the petitioner has let out or allowed a specific portion of the premises exclusively to be occupied by another person. In other words, there is no specific finding that the petitioner has parted with possession of any portion of the premises to another person. Merely because a relative or a friend resides with the tenant for a certain period continuously or otherwise does not amount to subletting as long as there is no-exclusive possession of the premises or a portion of the premises, by such person. Hence, the finding that there is sub-letting of the premises cannot be sustained. However, this conclusion of mine is not of any help to the petitioner in obtaining the relief in this revision because the order of eviction is also based on another ground that the petitioner has been allotted a suitable premises and as such is liable to be evicted under Section 21(1)(p) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').

(2.) It is not disputed before me and that is also the finding recorded by the Trial Court that the petitioner has been allotted a quarter belonging to a Co-operative Bank as the petitioner is an employee of the Co-operative Bank. The accommodation available in that quarter is similar to the premises in question. That being so, it is not possible to hold that the accommodation allotted to him by the Bank is not at all suitable to the petitioner. Hence, I do not see any ground to interfere with the finding recorded by the Trial Court that the petitioner has been allotted an alternative suitable accommodation.

(3.) For the reasons stated above, the civil revision petition is allowed in part. The eviction of the petitioner on me ground that there is sub-letting of the premises is set aside. However, the eviction order passed on the ground that the petitioner has been allotted alternative suitable accommodation is affirmed. As the petitioner has been allotted suitable accommodation, it is not appropriate to grant longer time to vacate the premises in question. Accordingly, the petitioner is granted time till the end of June, 1986 on conditions that the petitioner continues to pay the amount equivalent to the rent so far he has been paying to the respondent during the period of his occupation on or before the 15th of each month, and pays all the arrears of rent, if any, on or before the 15th December, 1985, Further, he has to file an undertaking before the Trial Court within a month from to-day that he will not cause damage to the schedule premises and will not induct third person/s into the premises and hand over vacant possession of the premises to the respondent" landlord on or before the end of June, 1986. If the petitioner fails to comply with any one of the aforesaid conditions, irrespective of the fact that the time granted by this Court has not expired, it is open to the respondent to proceed to execute the order of eviction.