SHANKARAPPA Vs. PUTTAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a tenant's revision petition challenging the decree for eviction, under Clauses (f) and (h) of Section 21(1) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, in HRC No. 1273 of 1973 (renumbered as 1431/1981), dated 22nd April 1983, on the file of VIII Additional Small Causes Judge, Bangalore. The tenant was granted six months time to vacate, by virtue of stay order, he continues to stay. Second respondent in this petition is the alleged sub-tenant, who is admittedly in possession of portion of the disputed premises. He claims to be a partner with the petitioner, on the basis of an unregistered partnership deed dated 2nd May 1977. These proceedings, initiated on 11th October 1973, having completed thirteen years, are in their fourteenth year.

(2.) Original land lord, though fortunate to see his claim being decreed, died on 18-5-1984, without realizing its fruits. His wife is brought on record as his legal representative.

(3.) Petitioner originally sought eviction only on the ground of bona fide and reasonable requirement, i.e. under 21(l)(h). He pleaded that he required the premises to start his own business. The tenancy is admitted ; so also the monthly rent at Rs. 180/-. Petitioner filed I.A.VII seeking amendment, which is allowed on 9-11-1982. An argument is constructed to contend that the eviction is sought for "his own occupation" i.e. the relief is personal ; therefore the wife who is brought on record, as legal representative, has to establish independently that she also needs it for her occupation. Only to ascertain the correctness of this assertion, I quote below a portion of the amendment petition, which reads thus :