LAKSHMINARAYANA Vs. MITHALAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure the counsel for tenant-revision petitioner has urged the sole ground that the Courts below trred in not noticing the admission made by the petitioner himself that he had a house, the rent of which was remitted to his account even on the date he so deposed in the trial Court. Undoubtedly such an admission has been made by the landlord. But on re-examination it has been clarified. He had stated in his evidence that he was residing some four years ago from the date of deposition at a house rented from one Siddappa Gunjal. But after a partition in the family the right of residence in that house was given to his brother. Thereafter the rent, however, of the premises occupied by his brother for his residence was being debited to his account apparently by an arrangement at the partition. That does not in any way prove that the petitioner was not residing in the two rooms in which he claimed to reside, in his pleadings.

(2.) Learned District Judge dealing with that aspect of the case has said that a party cannot pick up one sentence from here and there and try to build his defence on the basis of such stray sentences and then submit that the entire case of the landlord is demolished. That was the correct approach to be made.

(3.) I see no merit in the revision petition or material irregularity or illegality in the order under revision. Petition is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs.