(1.) This is a tenant's Revision Petition under Section 115 of C.P.C. The Respondent, who is the landlord, moved the Munsiff at Dharwar for eviction of the tenant from the Petition premises on the ground that it was required for him for his bona fide use and occupation. The tenant is in occupation of two rooms forming a tenament in a composite house where another tenant is also living. The Respondent/landlord has purchased the premises from the previous owner. The tenant resisted the prayer in the petition before the Munsiff on the ground that the requirement was not genuine ; that the petitioner was working at Bangalore and therefore he would not be requiring the residence of his own.
(2.) On the evidence led, the Munsiff held in favour of the tenant. Against that the landlord preferred a Revision Petition before the District Judge, Dharwar. In the course of the proceedings before the District Judge, he also produced additional documents such as the order of transfer made posting him to Dharwar and also a certified copy of the petition filed by him to evict the other tenant who has occupied the other portion of the petition premises. The Learned District Judge taking note these subsequent developments, reversed the findings of the Munsiff and directed eviction. Therefore the present Revision Petition in this Court by the tenant against the order of the District Judge.
(3.) Mr. Upadhyaya, Learned Counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that petitioner had no opportunity before the District Judge to lead further evidence on the new material placed before the Revisional Court. However, he admits that the application for receiving additional evidence was served on him and he had the opportunity of filing objections to it and the same been so filed. But, he is not able to state whether in the objections filed he had asked for permission of the Court to lead additional evidence from his side. If he did not ask and was not given, he cannot now make a grievance of it saying that he was not given an opportunity.