ADAM KHAN Vs. EDWARD JOHN MURNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant who has suffered an order of eviction under S. 21 (1) (a) and (j) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (shortly called 'the Act'), has preferred this revision petition, under S. 115 C.P.C.

(2.) The premises belonging to Respondent-1 are under the occupy tion of the, petitioner since 1958 on a, monthly rent of Rg. 120. The premises are admittedly not in a good condition nay in a dilapidated condition. In 1967, respondent-1 landlord, brought an action for eviction against the petitioner stating that he required, thp premises for immediate demolition and reconstruction, and also with a complaint that the tenant has sublet a portion of the premises. But he did not pursue that proceeding and withdrew the same with liberty to bring fresh action. So, in 1973 he filed another application for eviction. The application was filed under S. 21(1), (a), (b), (c) (d), (f), (h) and; (j) of the Act. We are not concerned with all those grounds in view of the findings recorded by the Courts below and on the limited arguments addressed in this Court.

(3.) The trial Court has made an order of eviction, solely on the ground that the landlord requires the premises reasonably and bona fide, for the immediate purpose of demolishing and such demolition is to be made for the purpose of erecting a new building. The eviction, in other words, was made under S. 21 (1) (j) of the Act.