RAGHAVENDRA P MUDHOL Vs. HANAMANT R KULKARNI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is by the tenant against the order of the learned District Judge, Belgaum, in HR.C. RP. No. 137/82 on his file.

(2.) The revision before the District Judge was preferred by the unsuccessful landlord who had sought eviction in the Court of the Munsiff under Section 21 (1) (h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Petition was presented by the landlord on the ground that h; required the same for his own bonafide use and occupation.

(3.) Undisputed facts of the case were that the landlord was living in the upstairs portion while the tenant was occupying the downstairs portion. Landlord claimed they were all cen in number consisting of himself, his wife, adoptive mother of the landlord, his two natural brothers and their wives and their children and in order to make their living comfortable they needed the downstairs portion also for the landlord's) use and occupation. While the learned Munsiff conceded that landlord was living with the members of the family as described above, the said members except his adoptive mother and wife did not constitute the family of the petitioner and therefore the prayer for own use and occupation was rejected. Aggrieved by the same landlord preferred the revision petition to which reference has already been made. The learned District Judge took the contrary view holding that it was not for the Courts to decide as to which relat've should constitute the family of the landlord seeking additional accommodation for the members of his family. Therefore, despite the f ct that brothers of the landlord were employed and not exactly dependent on the landlord as they had independert incon.e they could not be denied the right to live together if they so desired. On that reasoning reversed the finding of the Munsiff and allowed the petition and directed vacant possession of the part of the premises in the occupation of the tenant to be handed over to the landlord.