P NARASIMHAIAH Vs. P V SUBBA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition under Sec.50 of the Karntaka Rent Control Act 1961, is directed against the order of the III Addl Civil Judge, Bangalore made in HRC.301 of 1975 whereby he dismissed the landlord's application for eviction. The facts of the case, in outline, are these: The landlord who is the petitioner before me, is a retired official. He is a widower and has crossed 76. He lives in the house of his son-in-law. Adjacent to that house, there is a small house belonging to him which is in the occupation of the respondent as tenant. The said house was allotted to the respondent by the Rent Controller on a monthly rent of Rs.220 which was later enhanced to Rs. 250. The tenant is a Scientist in Indian Institute of Science at Bangalore. The landlord, after determining the tenancy, filed an application for eviction stating inter alia : (i) That he needs the premises for his bona fide use and occupation and it is embarassing for him to stay with his son-in-law; (ii) The tenant nas been tethering buffaloes behind the premises which has been a source of nuisance to him and the adjoining residents; and (iii) The tenant without consent has sublet a portion of the premises. The tenant in his objection statement, denied all those allegations. He also said that the proceedings for eviction were motivated, since he did not agree to pay higher rent demanded by 'the landlord. He further said that if he is evicted, greater hardship would be caused to him. The learned Civil Judge, after considering the eviction adduced by the parties, held -that the landlord has not established his bona fide need to occupy the premises; that the tenant was not guilty of nuisance; that the tenant has not sublet the premises; and that the tenant would suffer grealer hardship if he is ordered to be evicted. Accordingly, he dismissed the application for eviction. Hence this revision petition.

(2.) The primary contention urged before me was as regards the validity of the finding on the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The other two grounds upon which the eviction was sought, that is, subletting and committing nuisance, have not been pressed before me.

(3.) The landlord has examined himself as PW.1 He has not produced any other evidence. His evidence shows that he has lived a major part of his life in the house of his son-in-law, but now he has found that it. is not convenient for him. His son lives at Indirahagar with whom also he lived for some time. This is all .the evidence he has produced to establish his bona fide requirement to occupy the premises in question. The tenant in his evidence, while denying the need of the landlord, has stated that the action of the landlord was motivated by improper consideration to extract higher rate of rent. In support of that allegation he has examined one more witness (RW.2), Upon consideration of the above evidence, the learned Judge has Stated that there is no need for the landlord to have an independent establishment when he has all through lived with his son or son-in-law. The learned Judge has also observed that the inconvenience experienced or the embarrassment felt in the residence of the son-in-law, has not been explained by the landlord. He has further observed that all is well with his son-in-law and there is no necessity for the landlord to go out of that house when he is in his advanced age with nobody else to depend upon for a separate establishment.