FAKIRASA Vs. SHEKHARAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The questions that fall to be answered in this Revision Petition is whether the Learned District Judge committed an error of law in applying the ratio of the decision of this Court in the case of Gopichand Balwantharao and Another vs. Pundalik Govindappu and Others in coming to the conclusion that on the available evidence in the case landlords had not made out a case of then need for their own use and occupation, the tenanted premises from which they had sought the eviction of the tenant and whether the Learned Judge was correct in blindly reading that the petitioners landlords had not pleaded specifically that the tenant had built a building of his own for non-residential use and therefore liable for eviction under Clause (p) of sub-section (l) of Section 21 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) The facts may be briefly stated as follows :

(3.) The tenant resisted the eviction petition on the grounds that the petition premises was not genuinely required by the landlords; that the landlords were carrying on their business in a rented premises and their intention of doing their business activities therein was not bona fide. The petition was motivated to demand enhanced rent and the tenant would be put to greater hardship if he is evicted from the petition premises.