VIMALADEVI Vs. A VENKATESHA MURTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been preferred by the tenants who have been directed to vacate the schedule premises on the grounds covered by clauses (f) and (h) of the proviso to Section 21(1) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 ('Act' for short).

(2.) Some of the basic facts which are not in controversy may first be noticed. The schedule premises is a shop measuring 8 ft. x 8 ft. which is situated on the ground floor of the building owned by respondent No. 1 (hereinafter to be referred as 'landlord'). The said premises was taken on rent by late Ramlal, the husband of petitioner No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the 'tenant'), who had been running a watch repairing business therein till 1985. Thereafter he started his cloth business in the said shop which he continued till his death in September. 1986. The fact of carrying on the said businesses is borne out from the cross-examination of the landlord himself who has been examined as P.W. 1. It is also not in dispute that the said late Ramlal has left behind him six daughters and two sons. Out of them two daughters are married and other children are still minor who are petitioners 2 to 7 to this Revision application.

(3.) It is also an admitted fact that the landlord respondent No.1 is carrying on the business of stamp vending and he is in occupation of sufficient premises needed for the said business. The eviction petition in question had been filed by landlord on two grounds viz., (i) The tenant has sub-leased the premises in favour of Jabbar Singh; respondent No. 2 and (ii) It is required for bona fide and reasonable requirement of the landlord. The Court below has accepted both the pleas and has granted the impugned order of eviction.