PETER PAUL COELHO Vs. CONSTANCE DSOUZA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners herein who have been brought on record as heirs of the original tenent, since deceased, in occupation of the premises have sought to challenge the correctness of the judgment and order dated 24-2-1965 passed by the District Judge, South Kanara, now Dakshina Kannada, in H.R.C.A. No. 110 of 1974 con. firming the order of eviction dated 27-9-1974 by-the II Additional Munsiff, Man- galore, in H.R.C. No. 289/69 on the file of his Court.

(2.) Residential house bearing No. 15-458 of which the respondent-1 is admittedly owner and land-lord is the subject matter of dispute. Sylvester Coelho, since deceased, was the monthly tenant of the same paying a monthly rent of Rs. 20, the same being payable by the end of every calendar month. The tenancy commenced from the first of every calendar month and ended with the end of the month. The respondent terminated the tenancy of the said tenant Sylvester Coelho by a quit notice dated 2-11-1967 issued by his lawyer on the ground the said house occupied by him was very old and rickety and it was about to collapse and he therefore, reasonably and bonafide required the same for immediate purposes of carrying out the repairs to which the tenant gave a reply through his lawyer that there was no connection between the premises in his occupation and the portion which was old and rickety and even if any repairs or improvements were necessary the same could be carried out without he vacating the building and he also contended in the reply notice, the notice to quit was invalid, improper and insufficient and continued to occupy the same. Thereafter, the respondcnt-1 got issued another notice dated 5-11-1968 demanding possession of the premises as also the rent that were in arrears from 1-10-1967. but when it was returned through the post with an endorsement as 'escaping', on 15-12-1969 the respondent made an application in H. R. C. No. 289/69 in the court of the Munsiff at Mangalore for eviction of the tenant.

(3.) He contended after termination of the tenancy by quit notice dated 2-11-67 the tenant having continued in possession as a statutory tenant had failed to give vacant possession in spite of demanding possession. He sought for the eviction of the tenant on four different grounds mentioned in clause ;s (a), (b), (c) and (i) of sub-section (1) of S. 21 of the Karnataka Rent-Control Act, 1961,(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Firstly, on the ground that the tenant had committed default in payment of rent from 1-2-69 and failed to pay or tender the same in spite of Lawyer's notice dated 2-11-67 and 5-11-68 ; secondly, on the ground the house was old and rickety and he reasonably and bona fide required the same for carrying out repairs, that they could not be carried out without the tenant vacating the same and thirdly on the ground he had erected permanent structures by constructing a room at the southern end of the verandah of the house by enclosing it with walls and by constructing parapet walls and pillars into the remaining portion of the verandah and a new bath shed on the southern side of the premises and a new passage leading to the1 newly constructed room in the verandah and a new bath shed without his knowledge and consent and fourthly he was committing waste, that is to say, fixing a windo.v in the southern wall and removing the old steps built into the verandah and replacing them by new stepss outside the verandah. He contended, for all these reasons, the tenant was liable to be evicted. The tenant, who contested the application, filed his objections on 27-2-70. He denied either he had committed any default in payment or was due to pay any rent as alleged. On the other hand, he had paid the rentals payable up-to the month ending with 31-3-69 and that he offered to pay the subsequent rents, the respondent refused to receive the same without any valid reason. He further denied he had put up any permanent structure or made any alterations in the premises or had committed any waste or damage to the premises as alleged. He also denied the respondent-landlord reasonably and bonafide required the premises for carrying out the repairs or any such repairs, as contemplated were required.