BASALJNGAPPA Vs. RAMAKANT MALLAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two revisions under S.50 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), are directed against the judgment of the Addl District Judge, Bijapur, partly allowing the petition of the landlord under S.21 proviso (h) and (i) of the Act and directing the eviction of the tenant from the first floor of the schedule premises bearing CTS No. 1522 to 1525 in Ward No.II of Bijapur City.

(2.) One Ramakant Mallappa Desai owns the schedule premises and filed his application before the II Addl Munsiff, Bijapur (H.R.C.No.19 of 1967). for vacation of the premises by his tenant Basalingappa Mugbassapp Pattanshetti, under S.21 (a) (h) & (i) of the Act, and the pleas were: (1) that the tenant failed to pay the rent; (2) that, the premises were bona fide and reasonably required for occupation by the landlord; and (3) that the premises needed major repairs and unless the same were vacated, the repair work could not be carried out. The landlord applicant produced his attorney, PW-2, and one Assistant Engineer, PW-1, who came to state about the condition of the building. Besides these two witnesses, PWs.3 and 4 were also produced. These witnesses came to state that some other premises had fallen vacant at Bijapur and the tenant could as well occupy them; and that he would not suffer any greater hardship if he is asked to vacate the disputed premises. As against this evidence, the tenant PW-1 gave his own statement and denied that any repairs were needed in the premises, or that the landlord at all needed the same for his bona fide and reasonable requirement or that the tenant failed to pay the rent.

(3.) The learned II Additional Munsiff dismissed the application of the landlord. Thereafter, the landlord came in appeal before the learned Addl. District Judge and he partly succeeded, inasmuch as, the pleas under the proviso (h) & (i) prevailed before him. It was held that the first floor of the disputed premises was bona fide and reasonably required by the landlord for his occupation and that the said first floor was highly dilapidated and needed major repairs, which could not be undertaken without the premises being got vacated from the tenant. With that finding the application of the landlord was allowed for the first floor of the disputed premises. Against that order of the learned District Judge, two revisions are filed in this Court, one by the landlord in respect of the ground floor of the disputed premises. The other revision is filed by the tenant challenging the findings of the learned appellate Judge in respect of the first floor of the disputed premises.