MADANLAL Vs. C CHANDRASHEKARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a tenant's revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of civil Procedure.

(2.) ONE C. Chandrashekaran (hereinafter referred to as 'landlord')filed an eviction petition against the petitioner herein (hereinafter referred to as 'tenant') in HRC No. 283 of 1989, on the file of the learned first Munsiff, Mysore under clause (h) of the proviso to Section 21 (1) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 ('act' for short), in regard to a non-residential premises. The landlord contended that he is an Engineering Graduate with specialisation in Electronics and Communications, that he had no avocation and therefore he wanted to open a shop in the petition schedule premises ('premises' for short) to deal in electrical and electronics consumer items. The eviction petition was, thus, to meet the personal requirement of the landlord. It is not in dispute that neither the pleading nor evidence of the landlord put forth the requirement of any other members of landlord's family, nor stated that any other members of landlord's family will carry on business along with the landlord. In other words, the need was purely that of the landlord alone and not of landlord and the members of his family.

(3.) AFTER contest, the petition was allowed by the Trial Court, holding that the landlord had established that he required the petition schedule premises for his own use and occupation. The Trial Court also held that the need was that of the landlord and not that of any other member of his family. Feeling aggrieved, the tenant has filed a revision petition under Section 50 (2) of the Act in Rent Revision No. 3 of 1997, on the file of the Principal District Judge, Mysore.