KRISHANI BHIMARAO Vs. GHULAPPA BELAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a tenant's revision petition under S.50 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961.

(2.) The relevant facts lie within a narrow compass and they may be stated as follows: The premises bearing CTS.3166/B, Khade Bazar, Belgaum, belong to the respondent ('the landlord') . The landlord is a dealer in electrical goods and he is having a shop for that purpose on the ground floor of the premises. The petitioner ('the tenant') is a famous artist, who has redently retired from service. He has been occupying the first floor of the premises. The landlord brought an action for eviction stating, inter alia, that his electrical goods business started in 1971 has appreciated by leaps and bounds and in order to keep pace with the growing demands of the business additional storage space is required by him. The defence of the tenant, inter alia, was that the premises in the occupation of the landlord are sufficient for the purpose of his business and the upstair portion cannot be used as a godown. He also said that greater hardship would be caused if he is evicted therefrom. The learned Munsiff, however, upheld the plea of the landlord and, accordingly, made a decree for eviction. The learned Dist Judge also agreed with that view and dismissed the appeal of the tenant.

(3.) The main contention urged, before me, for the tenant was that the Courts below ought to have made a decree for partial eviction, when the tenant was agreeable to part with a portion of his premises. But, Counsel for the landlord urged that that plea was neither raised in the pleadings nor urged before the Court of first instance and, therefore, it must not be considered. It may be relevant to state that that contention has been raised in the appeal; but, the learned Judge has summarily rejected it.