GOPAL PRABHU Vs. MARK ALOYSIUS PEREIRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is sub-tenant's revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and is directed against the order of the District Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore, dated 17-12-1984 made in C.R.P. No. 164 of 1983 on his file. That matter arose before the District Judge on account of the order made by the Munsiff in H.RC. No. 68 of 1979 on the file of the II Additional Munsiff, Mangalore. That eviction proceeding was initiated in that Court at the instance of Respondents 1 and 2 herein, the landlords who were the purchasers of the Petition premises. They sued for eviction of the tenant and the sub-tenant on the ground that the premises were required for bona fide use and occupation ; that the tenant had not paid the arrears of rent despite a written demand and that the tenant had committed breach by sub-leasing the premises in question without the consent of the landlords. The Munsiff found in favour of the landlords and allowed the Petition. That is why the revision before the District Judge. The Learned District Judge has affirmed the order of the Munsiff.

(2.) In this Court, four points have been urged. The first one is that all the rents were paid by the sub-tenant as soon as he came to know of it and therefore there could not be any cause of action available, to the landlords to evict him on the ground available under Clause (a) of proviso to Subsection (1) of Section 21 of the Act. The second point urged is that the landlords had in or about the year 1976 demolished a building of their own elsewhere in the City of Mangalore and that would go to prove that they did not require any premises for their own use and occupation much less the premises in question. The third point urged is that in considering the comparative hardship the Courts below did not consider the comparative hardship caused to the sub-tenant and therefore there was a clear violation of the provisions contained in Sub-section (4) of Section 21 of the Act. The fourth point urged is that there was no contravention of any of the provisions of the lease orginally granted to the main tenant because the rent note executed at that time in 1953 provided for the tenant sub-leasing if he so desired.

(3.) I do not think there is force in any of the contentions urged. That the landlords demolished a building in the year 1976 or as contended by the landlords in the year 1966 would not be of much assistance to resist the claim for bona fide use and occupation which is a need that has arisen after the demolition. A owner of more than one property is free to deal with any of his properties in the manner he chooses as long as the object of such use is not prohibited by law. Therefore, mere act of demolition of one of his properties would not be a defence available to a later tenant in another premises unless there is direct evidence that the demolition was caused only to seek this particular premises. There is no such evidence in this case.