EFRIGIN JOSEPH FANTY Vs. SADANANDA SHANKAR PEDNEKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is filed under Section 115 of CPC being aggrieved by the order passed by the district Judge, Karwar in Rent Revision Petition No. 24/88 in confirming the order passed by the munsiff, Kanvar in H. R. C. No. 2/85 in rejecting the petition filed by the petitioner seeking for eviction.

(2.) THE petition premises situate at Karwar Municipal No. 1477, Karwar. Originally, the petition was filed by the mother of the petitioner herein seeking for possession of the petition premises from the respondent herein who is the tenant under the landlady for a monthly rental of Rs. 40/ -. She has contended that her son is a diploma holder in Air Condition and Refrigeration serving at bombay and he intends to establish a business in the petition premises as such she require the vacant possession of the petition premises for his bonafide use and occupation. The said petition was resisted by the tenant. After enquiry, the trial Court held that the requirement of the son is not the requirement of the landlady, as such, denied the order of eviction. As against that order revision was preferred. The District Judge in revision has passed an order of eviction, against which, H. R. R. P. No. 165/95 had been preferred by the tenant before this Court seeking to set aside the order of the revision Court. However, this Court has remanded the matter back to the revisional Court with a direction to reconsider the matter in accordance with law. Thereafter, the learned District Judge, once again considered the case of the parties and although it has answered all the points in favour of the landlady, but came to the conclusion that requirement of the son cannot be the requirement of the landlady and that after retirement it works out hardship to the tenant if he is vacated and accordingly, dismissed the revision of the landlady. Hence, this revision petition by the landlord.

(3.) HEARD the Counsel for the respective parties.