M M YARAGATTI Vs. VASANT SIDDOJI JADHAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition for review of the order of this Court dt.4-8-1976 in CRP.2611 of 1973 whereby HRC.45 of 1970 is allowed and the petitioner-tenant is directed to vacate the premises.

(2.) It was the case of the landlords-respondents before the learned Munsiff that they required the premises for their bona fide and reasonable occupation and as such, under S.21(1) proviso(h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, the tenant was to be asked to deliver possession of the schedule premises. On that plea essentially, the case of eviction was contested before the learned Munsiff. His finding was that the reasonable and bonafide requirement of the landlords was fulfilled. As such, he ordered for eviction of the tenant.

(3.) Being dissatisfied with the decision of the learned Munsiff, the tenant came in appeal before the learned Dist Judge, and as evident from the appellate order, a specific plea was raised at that stage, that the question of comparative hardship referred to in sub-sec (4) of S.21 was left undecided, as the landlords being new to their business, if at all would need a part of the premises. Therefore, the question of partial eviction was specifically raised and that question directly affected' the main contention as to comparative hardship of the tenant, if he is asked to vacate the entire premises. The learned Dist Judge, however, considered that the plea of partial eviction was not taken in the objection filed to the HRC petition and, therefore, the tenant was precluded from taking that plea. Saying so, the learned Dist Judge held that the reasonable and bonafide requirement of the landlords for the entire premises was satisfied. The eviction petition was accordingly granted. Thereafter, the tenant filed a revision in CRP.2611 of 1973 in this Court. The finding of the learned Dist Judge was confirmed and against the judgment of this Court, the present review petition is directed.