B KNARAYANA IYENGAR Vs. H VSUBBA RAO AND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner before this Court is the tenant and the respondents are the landlords. The respondents applied to the learned Munsiff, Dodballapur, in H.R.C. No. 3 of 1954 to evict the petitioner on the ground that they wanted the premises for their own use and occupation and also on the ground that the premises required repairs. The learned Munsiff rejected the application. In his opinion the building did not require any substantial repairs. He arrived at the conclusion that the respondents bona fide required the house for their own use, but felt unable to grant any relief to them as in his view the petition was not sustainable. He opined that it was barred by the rule of res judicata in view of the decision in H.R.C. No. 8/49-50. He further held that the quit notice issued by the landlords has been waived as they have received rent for a period subsequent to the determination of the lease.

(2.) The respondents went up in appeal to the learned Third Additional District Judge, Bangalore. It was tried as H.R.C.A. No. 61 of 1956. The learned District Judge agreed with the learned Munsiff that the building needed no repairs but he differed from the learned Munsiff on the question of res judicata and also on the question of waiver. He accepted the finding of the learned Munsiff that the respondents needed the house bona fide for their requirements and consequently allowed the appeal and ordered the eviction of the tenant. The tenant has come up in revision to this Court.

(3.) It is necessary to mention a few more facts. The first respondent is the son of the second respondent. The first respondent had filed earlier an application to evict the tenant on the ground that he had defaulted in the payment of rent and also on the ground that the house was required for the use of his mother and brother. The said application had been tried as aforesaid as H.R.C. No. 8 of 1949-50. The Court seems to have concentrated mainly on the question of arrears of rent. No attention was focussed on the question whether the landlord required the house for his own use. In the present petition as originally filed the respondents alleged that the house was required for the use of the second respondent (second petitioner in the trial Court) as she wanted to stay at Dodballapur. It was urged that she was finding her stay in Bangalore inconvenient and also that she wanted to educate her deceased daughter's son at Dodballapur. The first respondent is employed in the Electrical Department of the State Government. He was occupying Government quarters. During the pendency of the petition he was transferred to another post and the Government required him to vacate the premises which he was occupying. He got his petition amended and averred therein that he required this building at Dodballapur for his own stay in view of the changed circumstances.