LAWS(KAR)-1998-1-2

SYED NAZMUDDIN Vs. N S KRISHNA MURTHY

Decided On January 08, 1998
VIJAYNAGAR INDUSTRIAL WORKERS HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, BANGALORE Appellant
V/S
STATE OF KARNATAKA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent herein filed an eviction petition against the petitioner herein on various grounds, important of them being that the premises in occupation of the tenant is required for his son to start a small scale industry; that the tenant has acquired suitable alternative premises; this petition was resisted by the tenant by filing a detailed objection statement, denying generally all the petition averments including the ground of eviction viz. , that the premises is required for landlord's own use; besides the above, the tenant objected, for the landlord in including the adjoining open space, also as the "petition schedule premises", as the same belonged to him. On the basis of the pleadings, the parties went to trial and adduced evidence; the landlord in support of his case examined himself besides examining his son and three more witnesses, he also produced about 55 documents; similarly the respondent had examined himself and produced about 15 documents. The learned judge of the small causes in appreciation of the evidence led by the parties has allowed the eviction petition filed under Section 21 (l) (h) and (p) of the act while dismissing the petition filed under Section 21 (l) (a) (c) and (o ). In so far as the objection of the tenant for the landlord in including the "adjacent open space also, as the schedule premises" the learned judge has held that "though the said open space was not the subject-matter of lease between the parties, as the same also belongs to the landlord and the tenant has encroached the same, by the principle of "accession to the leased property" the tenant is liable to be evicted from the same".

(2.) AGGRIEVED by the same the tenant has preferred this petition.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-tenant submitted firstly that the trial court has committed an error of law in ordering eviction in respect of not only the leased property but also in respect of the adjoining vacant area on the northern and eastern side of the leased property which admittedly was not the subject-matter of the original lease; and belonged to him.