G SUBRAMANYA UDUPA Vs. D RAMAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) the revision application filed at the instance of the tenant is one under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the revisional order of the district judge, whereby it was held that the petitioner is liable to be evicted from the suit premises on the ground of personal necessity of the landlord, as also on the ground that the petitioner has acquired a suitable alternative premises of his own. The said grounds are covered by clauses (h) and (p) of the proviso to Section 21(1) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter in short 'the act'.)

(2.) some of the foundational facts as found by the courts below on the basis of pleadings and the evidence recorded, may be noticed at the threshold. The respondent is the landlord of the suit premises and the petitioner is the tenant. The suit premises comprises of one room, one big hall, one kitchen and one store room and petitioner runs a hotel therein. Contiguous to this premises, there is another premises comprised of one room, one hall, a kitchen and a bathroom, which has been occupied by the landlord and is living therein with 8 or 9 relatives being son-in-law of his brother and his family, being wife and the children. At the time of the impugned Order, the age of the respondent have been found as 71 years. Therefore, now he is of the age of about 76 years. It is also a admitted fact that subsequent to acquiring of the premises in question, the petitioner has constructed a building of his own located at a distance of about 2-21/2 miles from the schedule premises with floor area of 400 sq. Fts. In arakere, which according to the petitioner is being used by him for his residential purpose.

(3.) the respondent had filed the eviction petition before the learned munsiff at shimoga. Having lost the same, preferred a revision before the district judge, under Section 50(2) of the act. The learned district judge dis-agreeing with the findings of the learned munsiff, came to the conclusion that the respondent bona fide needs the schedule premises for his own use. Keeping in view the accommodation available, and the extent of need of the respondent, he did not find it feasible to order any partial eviction. Weighing the comparative hardship based on the need and available accommodation, he took the view that hardship faced by the landlord needs a more favourable consideration. Coming to the question of alternative site, he on the basis of the evidence led, has recorded a finding of fact to the effect that the premises constructed by the petitioner is a suitable alternative premises for running his hotel business. According to him, only because his own premises is situated at a little distance from the schedule premises or that it may result in lowering the income of the petitioner are not the grounds on which the suitability of an alternative premises can be rejected.