GOPICHAND BALWANTHARAO Vs. PUNDALIK GOVINDAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision under S.50 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the judgment of the Dist Judge, Bijapur reversing in appeal the judgment of the Addl Munsiff, Bijapur whereby granting the application of the landlord under S.21 of the Act, he ordered eviction of the tenant from the non-residential premises CTS.48 of Bagalkot. The landlords Muralidhar Govindappa Pethakar and his two brothers filed the petition under S.21(1) (a) (b) (f), and (o) of the Act, for eviction of Gopichand Balawanthrao Wadka and another who are the tenants, on the grounds, of their bona fide and reasonable need for occupation, default in payment of rent, sub-letting and utilising the premises for the purpose for which they were not let out. It was stated that the landlords are running their own business in their residential house bearing CTS.42 of Ward 9 which is not a suitable place for the said business and since they want to expand their business they stand in need of the disputed premises which are situated within the business locality of that town. It was also stated that the tenants were not doing any business of their own in the disputed premises and as such they could easily vacate the same. As stated before it was also contended that on the date of the petition a sum of Rs. 1160-59 was due towards the arrears of rent. The other two pleas of the landlords as to sub-letting and utilisation of the premises for a purpose for which it was not let out, were not pressed before the learned Dist Judge and the said pleas are even left out in revision as such the same may not be considered. The learned Munsiff however disagreed with the landlord and held that the arrears of rent were paid and that a reasonable and bona fide requirement of the landlords was not made out. Accordingly he dismissed the petition. The landlords went up in appeal before he learned Dist Judge but there they succeeded. The two pleas raised by the landlords, viz, the default in payment of rent and the reasonable and bona fide requirement for their own use and occupation, found favour with the learned Appellate Judge. Accordingly the petition was allowed and the tenants were asked to vacate the premises. They have now come up with the present revision.

(2.) During the course of the pendency of the petition, before the learned Munsiff, an application IA.1 was filed stating that the tenants were not paying the arrears of rent and that they should be directed to discharge their liability. Thereafter in August and September, 1973 a sum of Rs. 1.600 was deposited by the tenants. IA.1 was then not pressed by the landlords. Since this aspect has some bearing on the application of S.29 to a proceeding under S.21 of the Act as argued by the learaed Counsel for the petitioners, it need be mentioned at this stage.

(3.) It was urged on behalf of the petitioner tenants that the default if any in payment of rent committed by the tenants so as to afford a ground to the landlords under S.21(1) (a) of the Act cannot be utilised for their eviction, because, the tenants complied with the provisions contained in S.21(2) of the Act. The Appellate Judge, however in that connection held at one place that sufficient cause was shown by the tenants for not paying or tendering the rent, while at another place he chose to State that the cause shown by the tenant was not sufficient. In their reply to the main petition it was contended by the tenants that they had suffered loss in their business. That was a reason why they could not pay the arrears at the earlier stage. The agreement to lease Ext.P1 itself was entered under circumstances, Wherein, the tenants had to surrender a part of the disputed premises in favour of the landlords. This they did because of the loss suffered by them in the business. Similarly, they stated in their reply to the notice which is Ext.P5 signifying thereby that their circumstances were not affluent and they were not in a position to pay up the entire arrears. In his cross examination one of the tenants also stated in the Court, that they had suffered loss m the business. The landlord himself said in the witness box that the tenants were not doing any business It is obviously so because according to the landlords, the tenants are not getting any profit in their business All these circumstances did indicate a cause for the default to pay or tender the rent, and the "learned Appellate Judge has not givea any reason why these reasons as stated did not amount to sufficient cause for the default To that extent thus, the finding of the learned Appellate Judge cannot be sustained.