IDA MAY IRISH Vs. M C SATHYANARAYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this revision petition, the petitioner has called in question the correctness of the order dated 8th of december, 1995 made in h. r. c. no. 10320 of 1993 by the court of small causes judge at mayo hal], Bangalore, rejecting the claim of the petitioner-landlady for eviction of the respondent-tenant under Section 21 (1) (h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the act" ).

(2.) A few facts which may be necessary for the disposal of this revision petition, may be briefly stated as follows:

(3.) SRI albert, learned counsel appearing for M/s. Rego and rego for petitioner, strenuously contended that the learned judge having found that the claim of the landlady for eviction of the respondent is bona fide, has seriously erred in law in rejecting the eviction petition on the ground that the claim is not reasonable. He pointed out that the finding recorded by the learned judge on this aspect of the matter, is in total disregard of the evidence on record and contradictory in nature. He submitted that the evidence on record clearly establishes, and as a matter of fact, it has gone unchallenged, that the daughter and son-in-law of the petitioner do not have any accommodation of their own in Bangalore and they are residing in their friend's house as care takers. He further pointed out that if the nature of the cross-examination and the evidence on record is analysed, it would be clear that it is also not the case of the respondent that the claim made by the petitioner that her daughter and son-in-law along with their children should reside in the petition schedule premises is not genuine or there is no truth in it, but the only case sought to be made out by the respondent, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that they can stay with the petitioner in the premises presently occupied by her as the accommodation available in the said premises is sufficient; and, therefore, the finding recorded by the learned judge that the claim made by the petitioner for eviction of the respondent is not reasonable, is erroneous in law. He pointed out that undisputedly the accommodation available in the premises occupied by the landlady consists of two bedrooms, a prayer hall, a drawing-cum-dining room, etc. ; and it is not possible to accommodate the family of the daughter of the petitioner consisting of her husband and their two school going children, who were aged 17 years and 15 years in the year 1995 and who are now aged 20 years and 18 years in the premises occupied by the landlady. He further pointed out that this court can also take judicial notice of the fact that the grand children of the petitioner, in course of time, are to be married and their family would grow; and under these circumstances, the learned judge ought to have held that the claim made by the petitioner for eviction of the respondent is reasonable. He also submitted that the reasonableness of the claim made by the petitioner should have been considered in the backdrop of the status of the respondent, who is the managing director of a company, and also the evidence on record that if he is evicted from the petition schedule premises, he will not be put to any hardship and also keeping in mind that his family consists of only the respondent, his wife and a son. He pointed out that the daughter of the respondent, who was residing with him, is admittedly married and has left for united states of america. For all these reasons, the learned counsel submitted that the order under revi sion is liable to be set aside and an order of eviction may have to be passed against the respondent.