LAKSHMIKANTHAMMA Vs. SAREE MANDIR BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners, in this revision petition, are the owners of premises bearing No. 193, Gowramma Hostel Lane, Chickpet, bangalore-560053. The said premises consists of the ground floor and the first floor. The subject-matter of dispute in this petition relates to the ground floor of the said premises (hereinafter referred to as "petition schedule premises" ).

(2.) THIS petition is directed against the order dated 29th of october, 1992 made in H. R. C. No. 1162 of 1982 passed by the court of XIX Additional Small Causes Judge, Bangalore City, rejecting the claim of the petitioners for eviction of the respondent.

(3.) THE petitioners filed eviction petition against the respondent under Section 21 (1) (h), (p) and (o) of the Karnataka rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") on 20th of April, 1982. The case of the petitioners, as set out in the eviction petition, was that they require the petition schedule premises reasonably and for bona fide use and occupation, to wit, opening of an office of the second petitioner, who is an architect having secured a degree in architectural Engineering. It was their further case that since the respondent had acquired suitable alternate premises, it is liable to be evicted as provided under Section 21 (1) (p) of the Act. The petitioners have sought for eviction of the respondent also under Section 21 (1) (o) of the Act on the ground that the petitioner had kept the petition schedule premises vacant for a period of more than six months. The learned Small Causes Judge, who earlier decided the claim made by the petitioners, by his order dated 28th of July, 1986, while rejecting the claim of the petitioners for eviction of the respondent under Section 21 (1) (p) and (o) of the Act, directed eviction of the respondent under Section 21 (1) (h) of the Act. The respondent-tenant being aggrieved by the said order, filed a revision petition, C. R. P. No. 4684 of 1986, before this Court and this Court, by its order dated 31st of August, 1990, allowed the revision petition and remitted matter to the Trial Court for fresh consideration on the ground that the learned Small Causes judge had not considered the question as to whether the petition schedule premises is suitable for the use of the second petitioner.