LAWS(KAR)-1978-9-22

NARAYANAPPA DIVAKARAPPA Vs. GOPALA RAO SRINIVASA BHAT

Decided On September 08, 1978
NARAYANAPPA DIVAKARAPPA Appellant
V/S
GOPALA RAO SRINIVASA BHAT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition under section 50 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is instituted by the original landlord and is directed against the judgment dated 22-7-1974. passed by the learned. Second Additional District Judge, Dharwar in H. R. C. Appeal No. 95 of 1973 on his file confirming the order of dismissal of the petition for eviction instituted by the landlord passed by the learned Munsiff on 5-4-1973 in HRC 26 of 1970. on his file.

(2.) The landlord instituted action for eviction of the tenant under clauses (h) and (p) of the proviso to section 21(1) of the Act. He averred in the petition that the tenant had secured another building in which he was running his hotel and so he was liable for eviction under clause (p) of section 21(1) of the Act. He further averred that he required the suit premises bona fide and reasonably for his personal occupation. His family was growing and he wanted to accommodate one of his sons in business in the suit premises. The tenant however, resisted the requirements of the landlord.

(3.) The learned Munsiff, appreciating the evidence on record, held that the claim made out under clause (p) of section 21(1) of the Act by the landlord was established. But even so, he dismissed the petition taking the view that the lease was for a fixed period of 15 years and the period was not over and so the landlord was not entitled to approach the Rent Control Court for eviction of the tenant. The landlord took the matter in appeal before the learned District Judge. The learned District Judge, as stated above, has confirmed the order of the learned Munsiff by his order dated 22-7-1974. The learned District Judge has not, however, considered the matter on merits. He has affirmed the findings of the learned Munsiff that the lease period was not over and as such the landlord was not entitled to recover possession from the tenant. Aggrieved, by the order of the learned District Judge, the present revision petition is filed under section 50 of the Act.