S V SEQUERA Vs. NAGESH RAGHUNATH GOJE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is by the tenant under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. It is directed against the order of the District Judge made in revision of the order of the Munsiff in proceedings for eviction under the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961.

(2.) The bare facts necessary may be stated and they are as follows : The landlord sought eviction on the ground that the premises was required for his bonafide use and occupation, i.e., the premises in the occupation of the tenant. Tenant among other grounds resisted the eviction on the grounds that it was not so required and that in any event that another premises belonging to the landlord fell vacant during the pendency of the proceedings and landlord having failed to occupy the vacant premises could not possibly sustain his claim on the ground urged by him. The landlord rebutted the defence by contending that there was a partition in 1970 in his family and the house that fell vacant did not fall to his share. The petition premises fell to his share and therefore the question of not occupying what did not belong to him did not arise. There was no evidence before the District Judge. Therefore, he directed the parties to lead evidence before him. Evidence was lead. The landlord petitioner and his sister examined themselves and produced several documents and spoke of the partition and the allotment of properties to their respective shares. Certain documents like the mutation entries in the register of the Cantonment Board of Belgaum and some receipt Books for the period covered by the years 1977-80 were also marked. On appreciating the evidence, the District Judge concluded that the landlord could not have occupied the premises which was not allotted to his share and therefore directed eviction. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition is preferred.

(3.) Mr. Mandagi, Learned Counsel appearing for the tenant-revision petitioner in this Court has contended: