C.N. SEETHARAM S/O ALTE C.K.N. IYENGAR Vs. BANGALORE TIMBER CORPORATION REPTD. BY ONE OF ITS PARTNERS, SRI BABULAL KOTHARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is tiled by the landlord challenging the order dated 18.1.2006 in HRC. No. 546/2002 by the II Addl. Small Causes Judge at Bangalore.

(2.) THE Petitioner filed the eviction petition invoking Sections 40 and 27(2)(j) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 seeking eviction of the respondent tenant horn premises bearing No. 135, comprising of two vacant sites with temporary structures situated on 1st Main Road, Seshadripuram, Bangalore -20. It was contended that the lease in respect of the said premises was on monthly basis and the rent was Rs. 600/ - p.m. and the purpose of lease was to carry on business in retail timber trade and for other allied purposes, that previously HRC. No. 2124/88 was filed against the respondent under Section 21(i)(1) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (for short "1961 Act") and the said petition was allowed. Being aggrieved by the same, the respondent herein had preferred HRRP No. 773/96 and during the pendency of the said petition, the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered its decision under Section 31 of the 1961 Act and as a result, by order dated 4.11.1998 this court set aside the order passed by the trial court. Thereafter, legal notice dated 21.1.1999 was got issued by the petitioner terminating the tenancy and ejectment suit in O.S. No. 2786/99 was filed and the same was pending. In the meanwhile the Rent Act, 1999 was promulgated with effect from 31.12.2001 and the landlord filed the petition under Section 40 of the said Act. It was contended by the landlord that the lease was for the purpose of carrying on business in retail timber trade and for allied purpose and the tenant was entitled to put up temporary structures, during the period of lease and that the landlord intended to put up a commercial complex on the entire schedule premises and therefore, sought for possession of the schedule premises. It was also contended that the landlord had the requisite financial support and he had obtained plan and sanction from the corporation authorities and the same had already been produced in the previous proceedings in HRRP. No. 2124/88 and hence, sought for possession of the schedule premises under Section 40 of the Act and also eviction of the tenant as contemplated under Section 27(2)(j) of the Act.

(3.) IN support of his case, the petitioner examined himself as PW1 and got marked Ex.P -1 to P -5 while respondent examined himself as KW 1 and get marked Ex.K1 -K5.