N RAMAPRASAD Vs. C N KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a tenant's revision under Sec. 50 (2) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short ). Addl. Small Causes Judge, Bangalore on March 21, 1992 while rejecting the claim of the landlord for eviction under Sec. 21 (1) (a) and (j) of the Act in HRC. No. 1897/86 directed the eviction of the tenant under Sec. 21 (1) (p) of the Act. This order is under challenge in this revision petition. This revision is filed on April 15, 1992 and it would appear that in the mean time on April 2, 1992 tenant N. Ramaprasad died and therefore this revision petition is filed along with the application I. A. I. under Order 22 Rule 4 R/w 151 C. P. C. with a prayer to bring the L. Rs. (4 sons) of the deceased revision-petitioner on record in place of the tenant. I would refer to the petitioner-landlord and respondent-tenant (deceased) as they were arrayed in the eviction petition, as landlord and tenant for the purpose of convenience.

(2.) THE landlord sought for eviction of the tenant from the premises bearing old No. 35 and new No. 85 situated in St. John's Church Road, Bangalore City bounded on the west by Netaji Road, South by St. John's road and east and west by private property. Premises was leased for the purpose of running an industry. Though the tenant resisted the petition contending inter-alia that there exists no relationship of landlord and tenant, did not press it at the trial as I could see from the record.

(3.) IT is undisputed that the landlord is the absolute owner of the property in question though in fact it was purchased by his father on behalf of the minor somewhere in the year 1953. Ex. P-1 is the sale deed. Tenant took it on lease in the year 1958 for running an industry under the name and style 'vijayalakshmi Industries'. It is also not disputed that somewhere in the year 1974 certain portion measuring 10' x 40' from out of the vacant area in the disputed premises was taken over by the Corporation of the City of Bangalore for widening the Church Road. It is also undisputed that the tenant purchased certain land at Kacharkahalli, Hennur Road in the year 1983 or 1984, put up certain building in the said vacant land for the purpose of running an industry and in fact shifted major portion of the machinery (60% according to the evidence of RW-1) to the newly put up building immediately after construction and started functioning from there. It is therefore, in the year 1986 landlord made an application for eviction on the ground that the tenant is a defaulter and has not paid the rent within two months after the receipt of the statutory notice, that the building is old and dilapidated and needs immediate demolition and re-construction, that the tenant has acquired a suitable building and therefore he is liable for eviction under Sec. 21 (1) (a), (j) and (p) of the Act. Tenant resisted the application contending inter-alia that there exists no relationship of land-lord and tenant, that he was never in arrears of rent at any time except for few months and even that arrears are paid during the pendency of the trial, that building needs no demolition and that the new acquisition is not suitable for the purpose of carrying on the business which he started and continued in the disputed premises.