POPULAR AUTOMOBILES Vs. N VEERASWAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petition is directed against the order of the Court of Small Causes, Bangalore City, dated 3-12-1984 passed in H.R.C.No. 614 of 1982 ordering the eviction of the petitioner.

(2.) The facts material to the case are as follows: The petitioner is a tenant who is in occupation of the entire property bearing No. 48, Mavalli Tank Bund Road, Corporation Division No. 27), Bangalore, admeasuring East to West 280+293' and North to South 93'6"+ 135' 2 2 consisting of a building and vacant space within the said boundaries. The petitioner became a tenant by virtue of a lease from one Rajagopal. The building portion within the said premises actually measures 127'5" inlength and about 45' in width. It consists of the ground floor and the first floor. According to the petitioner, the employees of the petitioner Firm (M/s Popular Automobiles) together with their families have been residing in the said building. The lease is in existence since over 38 years. The respondent is stated to be the purchaser of a portion of the premises which is in the occupation of the petitioner by virtue of a sale deed dated 16-12-1981 executed by the aforesaid Rajagopai. The respondent instituted eviction proceedings against the petitioner claiming to be the landlord, for bona fide use and occupation of the premises under Section 21(1)(h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act. It was contended by the respondent before the trial Court that he was in occupation of a small rented house measuring about 41/2 squares in extent in Basavanagudi and that his landlord had filed a petition for eviction against the respondent. According to the petitioner, the area purchased by the respondent from his vendor Rajagopai is only 50' x 70'. After trial, the learned Small Cause Judge held that the respondent is entitled to eviction of the petitioner and ordered eviction of the petitioner from a portion of a residential property which belongs to the respondent as found by the trial Court. It is this order of eviction which is challenged in this revision petition.

(3.) The petitioner has raised several contentions. The principal contentions are: