GANGADHARA SETTY Vs. THIRUKAPPA SETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition is by the tenant (by Legal Representatives) under Section 115 of the C.P.C. It is directed against the order of the Learned District Judge, Chitradurga, in CRP. No. 27/1980 made in exercise of his jurisdiction under Sub-section (2) of Section 50 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The facts leading to the revision before the Learned District Judge may be stated and they are as follows : The tenant is in occupation of a corner premises on Shimoga-Harihar Road in Harihar Town as a tenant under the landlords who are Respondents in this Court. That premises measures 8 x 4/8 indicating that it is angular, probably triangular, in shape. The tenant took it on lease sometime in the year 1973 and continued thereafter as a statutory tenant. The landlords who occupied the rest of the building presented a Petition in the Court of the Munsiff at Davanagere seeking eviction of the tenant from the Petition premises on two grounds. The first ground urged was that they belong to the trading community of Vyshyas and they wanted to begin trade in Kirana (Provision Stores) and that they were already in possession of two adjacent shops and therefore tenanted portion was also required for their bona fide use and occupation. They also pleaded an additional ground alleging that the petitioner had built a house close by and there was sufficient accommodation in the house and further that it was so designed that his shop activity as a book and stationery depot could be carried on from the house itself.

(2.) The first of the grounds is available to the landlords under clause(h) of Sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Act while the latter ground is available at clause(p) of Sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Act.

(3.) The tenant resisted the eviction Petition on the ground that the requirement of the portion of the premises in occupation was not genuine or bona fide; that the petitioners were not Kirana merchants and that their claim on that ground was not real; that they filed the eviction Petition in order to get higher rent from the tenant and therefore it was with an oblique motive and not for any genuine requirements for own use and occupation. He also contended that the house which he had built nearby was residential and was not desigaed to run a book shop. The situation of the house was far away from the main road and not suitable therefore to carry on the vending of text-books and stationery for school students; that is in his residential area; there were butcher shops etc., which also would render that area un-suitable for his trading activities. On the evidence produced before him, the Learned Munsiff formulated the following necessary points for consideration : (1) Whether the landlords had proved that their requirement was bona fide ? (2) Whether the building, admittedly, built by the tenant was suitable for his trade ?