NARAYANA GOVIND ANIKHINDI Vs. VENUGOPAL SITAREM SARADA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is landlord's revision under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code and is directed against the order and decree dated 2-9-1983 passed by the District Judge, Bijapur, in Civil Revision Petition No. 33 of 1980 on his file. That matter came before him under subsection (2) of Section 50 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961. The petitioner-landlord initiated eviction proceedings in the Court of the Munsiff at Jamkhandi on the ground that the petition premises in question was required for demolition and reconstruction as the building was more than 100 years old and in the year 1974 in the month of October or thereafter, a portion of building's ceiling had collapsed.

(2.) It would be useful to state the undisputed facts. In the interregnum following the collapse in October 1976 and the presentation of the petition by the landlord for eviction under the Rent Control Act in the Court of the Munsiff, Jamkhandi, in July 1975, there was some negotiation between the landlord and the tenant in regard to the action one or the other should take. The tenant had suggested that the landlord should repair the building while the landlord wanted the tenant to vacate the building so that he may reconstruct the building after demolition. In fact, the averment of the landlord is that the brother of the tenant who had died sometime before the filing of the petition had assured the landiord that if six months time was given, he would vacate for the purpose of reconstruction and demolition. The tenant evidently resisted the eviction petition on the ground that the building did not require demolition and reconstruction ; that the building was in good condition except that the roof had fallen due to the improper maintenance by the landlord and therefore what was required was only the mere carrying out of the repairs which could be done even when he was in occupation.

(3.) On these pleadings, the evidence was led by parties supporting their respective cases. The Munsiff after appreciating the evidence before him directed eviction of the tenant. The tenant aggrieved by the said order preferred revision before the District Judge as referred to earlier. In the revision, the learned District Judge in disagreeing with the reasoning of the Munsiff in regard to the evidence placed before him has nevertheless allowed the revision petition of the tenant and set aside the order of the Munsiff, Jamkhandi, on the ground that the pleadings did not provide adequate ground for the landlord to seek eviction under that provision of law as there was no employment of the words "for the immediate purpose of demolition" occurring in clause (j) of sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Act. By doing so, he did no more than follow a decision of this Court. Therefore, the present revision petition before this Court.