RAMACHANDRA SETTY Vs. RAJALAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is brought from the judgment of the First Addl. Civil Judge, Bangalore, under Sec.50 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act), wherein the decision of the Civil Judge evicting the petitioner from premises No.1709 Ramamohanapuram, Nagappa Block, Bangalore, is called in question.

(2.) HRC.No.1546 of 1975 was filed by the landlady Rajalakshmi against her tenant Ramachandra Setty occupying the complete tenement No. 1709 in Ramamohanapuram consisting of the ground-floor and the firs'; floor as tenant on monthly tenancy which was stated in the petition to commence on the 10th of every English calendar month. The petition was made on two grounds that is, Clauses (a) and (h) of the proviso to Sec.21(1) of the Act. The landlady mentioned in her petition that she issued notice to quit dated Dec.27, 1972 and in that notice she terminated the tenancy on the 9th of the following month It was also seated that the premises were leased on June 10, 1965 for a period of eleven months. The lease period expired long back and obviously thereafter the tenant continued as tenant by holding over under Sec. 116 of the Transfer of Property Act. The notice of demand of rent, according to the landlady was also issued and the tenant had not paid the rent. In the petition it was stated that the premises is reasonably and bonafide required by the landlady for occupation as the premises already in the occupation of the landlady are insufficient for her family needs. It was also specified in the petition that some time before, the ground-floor of the out-house occupied by her had fallen vacant but the said accommodation would not have met her needs and as such she let it out to somebody else. On these grounds, the petitioner tenant was asked to vacate the premises in dispute.

(3.) The petitioner-tenant filed his counter statement and in that he admitted that the tenancy commenced from the 10th of every month although according to him lasted with the 10th of the succeeding month. the tenant also pleaded that he was not due for the arrears of rent. He denied that the landlady was in reasonable and bonafide requirement of the premises. It was also contended that the tenant will be put to greater hardship if the order of eviction is passed in favour of the respondent-landlady. It is significant that no plea was taken pertaining to notice to quit not any objection was availed of signifying that the needs of the landlady would be provided for if the tenant is asked to vacate the disputed premises partially.