KRISHNA BHAU KADAM Vs. KISHANDAS RAMACHANDRA TELI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a tenant's revision petition under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure . The petition is directed against the order of the District Judge, Bijapur, dated 12-4-1982, made in H.R.C. R.P. No. 3 of 1981, on his file. That revision petition before the learned District Judge was preferred by the landlord having failed to secure an order of eviction against the tenant in H.R.C. No. 10 of 1977 on the file of the Munsiff, Jamkhandi.

(2.) The landlord presented the petition before the Munsiff for eviction of the tenant on the ground that he had not paid the arrears of rent despite a written notice served on the tenant and that the petition premises was required for his own bonafide uses and occupation. The tenant resisted the petition on the ground that he had paid all the arrears of rent and that there was no arrears to be paid and that whatever the Court determines as arrears of rent, he was ready and willing to pay it at any time. He also pleaded that the requirement of the landlord of the petition premises for his own bonafide use and occupation was not a genuine request and that it was motivated by other considerations. He contended that the landlord had enough accommodation of his own having purchased a block of building valued at Rs. 4,00,000.00 and that therefore, he could not ask for this small area comprised in the petition schedule premises for his own bonafide use and occupation.

(3.) Several documents as well as oral evidence were adduced in support of the rival contentions. The Munsiff came to the conclusion that both the grounds were not made out by the petitioner and, therefore, dismissed the petition refusing eviction. The learned District Judge, before whom the landlord took up the matter under section 50(2) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, while confirming that there was no genuine requirement by the landlord of the premises in question for his own bonafide use and occupation, nevertheless, allowed the petition on the ground that there was no evidence nor sufficient cause as to why the respondent/tenant did not pay the arrears of rent demanded in the notice having agreed to do so, as evidenced by the reply to the notice, within two months time given under proviso (a) to sub-section (1) of section 21 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961. He, therefore, allowed the petition.