SHIVAYOGAPPA TAMBAKE Vs. SEETHABAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been referred to a Division Bench by Jagannatha Shetty, J., under Sec.8 of the Karnataka High Court Act. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Shantilal vs. Chimanlal, AIR. 1976 SC 2358. which doubts whether a landlord of business premises can be said to require the same for his own use if he wants the same for a firm of which he is a partner, the learned single Judge felt the decision of this Court in C.R.P.No.1678 off 1973(2) may require reconsideration.

(2.) The revision is directed against the Judgment of the learned District Judge, Bijapur, in a House Kent Control Appeal (H.R.C.A.No.54 of 1973). By that judgment the learned District Judge set aside th9 order dated 20-11-1973 of the II Addl. Munsiff, Bijapur, in H.R.C.No.72 of 1972.

(3.) The petitioner herein, Shivayogappa Tambake, filed a petition for eviction under Sec.21(1) (h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act), against Seethabai, the respondent herein, who is admittedly the tenant of the petition premises consisting of a godownl with a small room attached to it, in all measuring 232 sq.yds, and situated in C.T.S.No.966 of Ward No.3 of Bijapur city. The petitioner's case is: the firm, Messrs S.S.Tambake, of which he is a partner, carries on business on a large scale, and in connection with the said busings the petition premises are required to store or keep the articles ; the godowns in the firm's occupation not being sufficient it had taken some godowns belonging to others on lease, and even then the space available is not sufficient, and, therefore, he had purchased the petitioln, premises from its previous owner Madhav Rao Naik in 1966 for the use of the firm he had validly terminated the lease in question calling upon the opponent to deliver vacant possession of the premises; and the opponent had CRP.216 of 75. refused to give vacant possession. The landlord claims possession on the ground that the premises are reasonably and bona fide required for use and occupation by the firm of which he is a partner.