LAWS(KAR)-1997-3-57

BASARALLI CHANDRASHEKAR Vs. Y CHANDRAPPA

Decided On March 17, 1997
BASARALLI CHANDRASHEKAR Appellant
V/S
Y.CHANDRAPPA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a landlord's revision petition filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code and it is directed against the order dated 29-8-1994 in H. R. C. R. No. 16 of 1989 on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bellary, confirming the order dated 17-12-1988 passed in H. R. C. No. 8 of 1986 on the file of the teamed Principal Munsiff, Hospet.

(2.) THE petitioner instituted eviction petition under Section 21 (1) (h) and (j) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'act') claiming possession of the petition schedule premises which is admittedly in possession of the respondent as a tenant. The case of the petitioner was that his father filed H. R. C. No. 3 of 1984, before the same Court seeking eviction of the respondent herein on the same ground as mentioned in this petition. The father of the petitioner died during the pendency of the said HRC petition. A memo was filed by the Counsel appearing for his father after the death of his father before the Trial Court, seeking permission of the Trial court to withdraw the petition with" permission to institute a fresh petition. The Counsel appearing for the respondent herein endorsed the said memo and wrote that he has no objection for the same and the said Court dismissed the eviction petition h. R. C. No. 3 of 1984 as not pressed on 29-10-1985 on the same date when the memo was filed.

(3.) IN the year 1986, the petitioner instituted the present eviction petition H. R. C. No. 8 of 1986 against the respondent, praying for an order of eviction under Section 21 (l) (h) and (j) of the Act, on the ground that the schedule premises is very old and it is in a dilapidated condition and the adjacent premises had already fallen down and therefore, he requires the petition schedule premises for the immediate purpose of demolition and reconstruction. The petitioner further stated that his children and the other children of his joint family have to go to Hospet for their schools and colleges. They have to travel from Naganahalli to Hospet which is about 4 to 5 kms. There is no higher education facility in the village. It is also stated by the petitioner that he will be making one of his brothers to stay in the petition schedule premises at Hospet to bring back the children and make them stay in the petition schedule premises and they will be looked after by his brother so as to enable the children to easily attend the schools and colleges at Hospet.