ANNAPURNADEVI Vs. DODDABASAPPA HONNAPPA MEGALMANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) though, this petition is listed for admission, the same is taken up for final disposal with the consent of the learned counsel appearing on both the sides, as the respondents have entered caveat.

(2.) the petitioner has presented this petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the judgment and order dated 5th december, 1995 passed by the learned i additional district judge, dharwad, sitting at hubli in revision (rent) No. 38 of 1994, dismissing the revision petition and affirming the order dated 30th march, 1994, passed by the principal munsiff, hubli in h.r.c. No. 209 of 1980, directing the eviction of the petitioner from the petition schedule premises under Section 21(1)(h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (for short 'the act').

(3.) the petitioner is a tenant under deceased respondent in respect of the petition schedule premises. Respondent filed a petition under Section 21(1)(h) of the Act, for the eviction of the petitioner on the ground that the petition schedule premises is bona fide and reasonably required for their personal use and occupation. It was statet. By the first respondent that he was an asthmatic patient and he needs constant treatment and all his children are young, studying in different colleges of hubli and therefore he required the premises for his occupation. The petitioner having entered appearance, filed her objections. The trial court, dismissed the petition. The learned district judge allowed the revision filed by the legal representatives of respondent and directed the eviction of the petitioner. The petitioner filed a revision petition before this court in c.r.p. No. 4448 of 1988. This court allowed the revision petition and remanded the matter to the court of first instance for fresh disposal in accordance with law and in terms of the directions which reads as under: