RAHAMAT BI AND OTHERS Vs. ASHAKTHA POSHAKA SANGHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only ground urged before me is that in passing the order of eviction comparative hardship has not been taken into account by the Courts below before passing the decree for eviction. The thrust of the argument is that sub-section (4) controls the whole of Sec. 21 (1) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the Act). I do not think that proposition can be accepted by the Court. Comparative hardship is meant for a decree of eviction to be passed under clause (h) of sub-section (1) of Sec. 21 of the Act and no other ground. The Legislature specifies the application of the test to particular ground enumerated and what is specified, so cannot be extended to other grounds of eviction available to the landlord. In the result, there is no merit in the contention. It is rejected as well as the petition.

(2.) However, in a connected matter, it appears time was extended by 11/2 years. The landlord has entered appearance on notice. His Counsel has no objection for this Court to extend the period given by the District Judge by one more year from today subject to payment of the rents regularly without default. It is so extended by consent. Petition Rejected.