RAMAKRISHNA GOVINDA HANMASHET Vs. BELGAUM BIDI BEPARI SANGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Sec.50 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act as it stqod unamended is directed against the judgment dt. 18-6-1974 passed by the I Addl Dist Judge, Belgaum in HRC App.10 of 1973 confirming the order dt.21-11-1972 passed by the II Addl Munsiff, Belgaum, in HRC. 135 of 1970, rejecting the application filed by the petitioners under S.21(1) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

(2.) The undisputed facts are that the schedule premises belongs to the petitioners. On 23-11-1960 the petitioners leased the schedule premises to respondent-1, Belgaum Bidi Bepari Sangh, represented by its partners respondents 2 to 17, by a lease deed Ext.P2. The lease was for one year. After the expiry of that period of one year, the lease continued on monthly basis. By March-April 1967 the Sangh was dissolved and respondents 2 to 10 and 12 to 17 made over their assets and liabilities to respondent-11 and respondent-11 continued to run the same business in the very premises. In 1968 the petitioners filed a case in HRC.25 of 1968 praying for vacant possession of the premises on the ground available to them under S.21(1) (b) of the Act. The petition was dismissed and that decision was confirmed by the Dist Judge in appeal. The Dist Judge observed in the course of his judgment that in fact the ground relied upon by the petitioners was under S.21(1) (o) and they had failed to establish tha same. The petitioners filed a revision petition in CRP.1299/70 and the same was dismissed on 21-7-1971, As in the course of the judgment th Dist Judge had dealt with the ground available under S.21(l) (f) of the Act also and by the time CRP.1299/70 was to be disposed of, the present HRC proceeding had been instituted by the petitioners, this Court, while disposing of the revision petition, allowed liberty to the petitioners to develop the ground available to them in the present HRC. 135/70.

(3.) In the Court's below the petitioners relied on grounds u/S.21(1) (b), (f), (o) and (h) of the Act. In this petition the petitioners have restricted their case only to 'the grounds available to them u/S.21 (1) (f) and (o), They have given up their contention in regard to the grounds under Section 21(1) (b) and (h) of the Act.