GOVIND NEELKANT BABANAGARE Vs. KRISHNA BALA PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are landlord's Revision Petitions under Section 115 C.P.C. In these three Revision Petitions he has assailed the common order passed by the District Judge, Belgaum, in H.R.C.R.P. 32,33 and 34 of 1982 on his file. The Respondents in these Petitions are the tenants. The premises in question are non-residential premises of small dimensions fetching a rent in the range of Rs. 16/- to Rs. 17/- or less. In the year 1975 he presented a Petition for eviction of the tenants, not only the present Respondents but also some others who occupied the adjoining shops situated on National Highway No. 4 at Nippani town. Four months before the filing of the Petitions he had issued notice to the Respondents calling upon them to vacate the premises as he intended to demolish the premises in question and put up a new construction. Some 4 years prior to the filing of the Petition he had obtained Municipal licence for such construction. He also urged the ground that the tenants had not paid the rents despite written notice served on them. These two grounds fall under clauses (a) and (j) of Sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The Learned Munsiff before whom the eviction Petitions were filed dismissed the ground urged in regard to non-payment of arrears of rent but allowed the Petitions on the ground of clause (j) of sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Act, that is, for bonafide requirement of the landlord for immediate purpose of demolition and reconstruction. Aggrieved tenants preferred revisions before the District Judge. The Learned District Judge, after appreciating the evidence adduced before the Munsiff and also appreciating the arguments advanced, came to the conclusion that there is total misdirection by the Munsiff in examining the scope of the ground under clause (j) of sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Act and therefore, his order was liable to be interfered with and set aside. In the result, he allowed the Revision Petitions and dismissed the eviction Petitions. It is against that common order that the present Revision Petitions are preferred.

(2.) Mr. Balakrishna Sastry, appearing for the petitioners-landlord contended that the District Judge was the one who resorted to erroneous reasoning and not the Munsiff, that the landlord had not established his bona fide requirement for demolition and reconstruction and the evidence produced by him ought to have been accepted.

(3.) It came out in the oral evidence of the landlord that some of the other tenants had been evicted earlier and while he had obtained possession of one shop premises, the other two tenants had approached this Court and obtained stay of the further proceedings and therefore, he could not proceed with the construction. In that circumstance, it is contended by Mr. Sastry, that the District Judge erred in coming to the conclusion that the conduct of not re-constructing after demolition in the vacant premises went to prove the lack of bonafides.