B FRANCIS JAGAN Vs. N R NARAYANA SWAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this revision the tenant has assailed the legality of the order of trial Court dismissing his application filed under Order 23, Rule l (4) (b)read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code. This application is filed by the tenant in the eviction proceeding initiated by the respondent landlord under the provisions of Section 21 (l) (h) of the Karnataka Rent control Act ('act' for short ).

(2.) IN his affidavit filed in support of LA. No. I, the petitioner has stated that, he is a tenant of the premises which is a shop premises which was taken on rent by his late father from the respondent-landlord. The petitioner has been doing electrical goods business. The respondent-landlord had filed a petition in H. R. C. No. 2757 of 1992 against the petitioner's father under the provisions of Section 21 (l) (h) of the Act for his bona fide use and occupation. In that case, the landlord got himself examined as P. W. I and he has also cross-examined at length. After cross-examination of P. W. I, the respondent-landlord withdrew the said petition without reserving liberty to file a fresh petition. Therefore, the said petition came to be dismissed as not pressed.

(3.) CONTROVERTING the contention raised by the tenant in LA. I, the respondent filed his objections to LA. I contending that, the previous petition had been filed for the bona fide use and occupation of his son suresh and also for the landlord's law chambers and that he withdrew the earlier eviction proceeding upon the request made by the present petitioner who undertook to deliver vacant possession of the petition prsmises. The respondent filed a memo to that effect in the said case. It is also contended that, under the Rent Control Act, an eviction proceeding can be initiated on recurring cause of action and therefore, permission to file a fresh petition does not arise, as the right is conferred by statute. The landlord has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in surajmal v Radheshyam and the judgment of the Single Judge of this court in Subba Raju K. and Another v G. S. Dattamurthy and Another. The Trial Judge while considering the rival contentions squarely relied upon these two decisions by the landlord and dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Order 23, Rule l (4) (b) of Civil Procedure code.