SRINIVASA BALIGA Vs. GOPALAKRISHNA PAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a tenant's revision under Section 115 of the C.P.C. directed against the order of the Learned District Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore, dated 13th December. 1982. The order is made in CRP No. 93/1980 on the file of the Learned District Judge. That revision before him was also filed by the tenant-petitioner against the order of the Munsiff. Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore, made in HRC. No. 280/1973 on his file. The question involved in this revision has been pending for long in the Courts, there is no doubt. As on this date, it is over 12 years. It is equally unnecessary for me to state that both the Courts below have held against the tenant. Therefore, he is in this Court under Section 115 of the C.P.C.

(2.) The facts leading to this petition may be briefly stated as follows : The petitioner-tenant by virtue of a lease said to have been entered between himself and his landlord, the respondents, came to possess 1050 sq. ft. adjacent to Roopavani Talkies owned by the respondents-landlords The conditions of the lease were such that any structure, erected on the said 1050 sq. ft. of open space would not enure to the benefit of the petitioner-tenant. After building some structure thereon the tenant has been using it as an extension to his hotel for purpose of serving refreshments etc. The lease as above was for a period of five years and expired on 31 8 1973. Soon, therefore, the petitioner filed a petition in the Court of the Munsiff, Dakshina Kannada. Mangalore, seeking eviction under the Karnataka Rant Control Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the following grounds :

(3.) the landlord examined himself and got marked the documents Exs. P1 to P3. Ex. P2 is the inspection report of the Deputy Commissioner, the competent authority under the Karnataka Cinema (Regulations) Rules and Ex. P3 is the renewal of licence for cinematograph shows for the year 1979. Ex. P2 is of the year 1974 and is made approximately one year after the petition was filed. It can be seen from those two documents that the Deputy Commissioner or the licensing authority has opined that the car parking space is inadequate. In that circumstance, notwithstanding the assertion on oath by D.W-1-the tenant, that the landlord had bean left with adequate space within the cinema theatre complex for parking cars, the Munsiff came to the conclusion that the petitioner landlord had proved that there was no adequate place for parking the cars and therefore directed eviction. Though one more ground was urged under clause (p) of the proviso to Section 21(1) of the Act, it was not pressed nor any evidence was lead in that behalf by the petitioner-landlord. Therefore, that ground was dismissed as not available to the landlord. Aggrieved by the same, the landlord preferred the revision before the District Judge under Section 50(2) of the Act.