CHANDRIKA ENTERPRISES Vs. G VITTALA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are landlord 's revision petitions against a common order dated 30-9-1988 in H.R.C. Nos. 191/84 and 193/84 and three other cases which had been filed by the petitioner under Section 21(1)(h) and (J) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafterwards referred to as 'the Act ') praying for eviction of the respondents from the petition schedule property namely portions of the premises bearing No.5 (old No. 16/3) situated in II Cross, Ramkrishnapuram; Bangalore. By the said common order, the trial Judge dismissed all the eviction petitioners. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have filed these revision petitions. Since the landlords are common in these petitions and the property is different portions of the same premises in the two petitions, and common evidence has been recorded by the trial Court relating to all the five petitions in H.R.C. No. 191/84, and all the petitions have been disposed of by a common order by the trial Court, a common order is hereby passed in these two revision petitions.

(2.) The facts which have led to these revision petitions may briefly be stated as follows:-The petitioner which is a partnership firm resented by its Managing Directors which is common in all the five petitions, filed the said eviction petitions praying for eviction of the respondents-tenants in different portions of the same property bearing No.5. The case of the petitioner has been summarised in para 2 of the impugned order. It reads as follows:-

(3.) The case of the respondent in H.R.C. 191/84 has been summarised in para 5 of the impugned order. It reads as follows:-"It is true that the respondent herein is the tenant in respect of the petition schedule property. It is denied that the petitioner has purchased the petition schedule property for the purpose of starting the lodging business. It is false to contend that the petitioner had requested this respondent to vacate the premises. The alleged need of the petitioner is neither reasonable nor bona fide. It not admitted that the petitioner has made all arrangements to start the proposed project. It is false to contend that the petition schedule building is in a dilapidated condition. This respondent has spent more than Rs.15,000/- towards the renovation of this premises with the consent of the landlord. The petitioner has no intention to start any lodging business in this building. Its intention is only to evict this respondent since the respondent did not oblige to the demand of the petitioner to pay more rent. The respondent has no other source of living, except the business being run in the petition schedule premises. In the circumstances, if an order of eviction is made, he will be thrown to destitution. On the other hand, if this petition is dismissed, no hardship may be caused to the petitioner. For these reasons, this petition may be dismissed. This respondent has also filed an additional objections contending that the petition is bad for non-compliance of Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act.