TARACHAND MEHTA Vs. THEMMAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these three revision petitions are preferred under Section 50 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act by the respondents in h. r. c. nos. 2215, 2216 and 2217 of 1987. Respondents in these revision petitions were the eviction petitioners in the three h. r. c. petitions before the lower court. All the three eviction petitions were clubbed together by the trial court and a common order was passed in all the three cases. In this Order, parties will be referred to as landlords and tenants.

(2.) THE landlords instituted eviction petitions against the revision petitioners-tenants stating that the first eviction petitioner is the wife of one b. N. Puttanarasimhaiah @ rajanna and the petitioners 2 to 9 are the sons and daughters of the said puttanarasimhaiah, who has not been heard of from 29-3-1978 by the petitioners till the date of filing of the eviction petition. In spite of their best efforts from 29-3-1978, the said puttanarasimhaiah has not been heard of for more than 7 years by the petitioners, who would have naturally heard of him and therefore, under law, Sri b. n. puttanarasimhaiah is presumed to have been dead. It is further stated that the petitioners are the only legal heirs of the said puttanarasimhaiah and they have succeeded to his estate. It is further stated that the tenants in the three eviction petitions are monthly tenants under them on a monthly rentals of Rs. 350/-, Rs. 275/- and Rs. 475/- respectively. During the life time of b, n. Puttanarasimhaiah, he had borrowed a loan from grain merchants co-operative bank, Bangalore and in order to clear the loan, he had directed the tenants to pay the monthly rentals to the said bank with effect from 1-7-1977 for a period of 30 months and joint deed was executed on 1-7-1977 by puttanarasimhaiah and the three tenants in favour of the above mentioned bank. The landlords have further alleged, that in spite of the said agreement, the tenants have not paid the rents to the bank as agreed and therefore, they have fallen into arrears. Here itself, it is to be noted that the ground under Section 81 (1) (a) of the Rent Control Act is not pressed by the landlord.

(3.) IT is further alleged that the petitioners 7 to 9 were young and energetic and they are unemployed. The 7th petitioner was having sufficient experience to run a non-vegetarian restaurant and the petitioners want to start a non-vegetarian restaurant in the entire schedule building after effecting necessary alterations to suit their requirement and convenience and that they have the necessary financial capacity to start the said business. It is also stated by them that they have no fixed source of income to lead a decent life and therefore, they wanted to augment their income by starting the said business in the schedule premises, which are convenient and suitable for the said purpose. It is also stated by them that except the schedule premises, which are in occupation of the three tenants, they do not own or possess any other building in Bangalore. They therefore, reasonably and bona fide required the petition premises in the occupation of the tenants for their own use and occupation for the purpose of starting a non-vegetarian restaurant. They also pleaded comparative hardship in their favour.