K RAGHAVAN Vs. M S ZAHED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 2-1-1991 passed in House Rent Case No. 10269 of 1989 evicting the petitioner from the premises giving three months' time. The petitioner is the tenant and the respondent is the owner of the petition schedule premises. In House Rent Control petition both husband and his wife Mrs. Hemalatha Zahad filed petition under Section 21 (1) (h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act stating that the petition premises in which they were residing were not sufficient to give sufficient accommodation for four children who are studying and for accommodating aged parents who are now residing in Mysore. The respondent-M. S. Zahad is a technically skilled person occupying a very coveted position in h. M. T. Division as Deputy General Manager. Since he is in the field of export, it is alleged that the petition premises is required to entertain the foreign customers and dignitaries required for the business of the factory. In the event of refusing eviction, he would be put to great hardship, on the other hand the petitioner-tenant has taken up a contention that he was coerced for the enhancement rent of Rs. 600/- p. m. and higher advance of rs. 10,000/ -. The present accommodation available for the landlord is sufficient. As such no additional accommodation is required. There were police complaints by the landlord. As such the relationship has been strained and this petition is only a coercive measure to evict him. According to the tenant, three bed-rooms are available for the landlord and their parents are not living in Bangalore. Hence neither additional accommodation is required nor any hardship would be caused to the landlord. On the other hand in the event of eviction, the tenant would be put to greater hardship.

(2.) FOR the landlord, himself is examined and got marked Exs. P-1 to P-13 and for the tenant, himself is examined and Ex. R-1 is marked.

(3.) AFTER the closure of the evidence, the learned IV Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, has recorded findings in favour of the landlord and has passed the impugned order evicting the tenant granting three months' time. Being aggrieved by this, this petition arises.