V JAYARAM Vs. A M ABDUL RAHMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition arises under Section 50 (1) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 from the judgment and order dated 20th March, 1991 delivered by Sri K. G. Lakshmipathi, IV Addl. Judge of Small Causes, Mayo Hall, Bangalore, in House Rent Case No. 10842/83 initiated and instituted under Section 21 (f) and (h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as "the Act", for short.

(2.) ). The petitioners filed the petition under Section 21 of the Act for decree of possession of the premises in dispute by eviction of the tenant therefrom on the grounds mentioned in clauses (f) and (h) of the Act, namely illegal sub-letting of the premises or part of the premises and as well as the other ground, namely that premises in question was reasonably and bona fide required by the landlord for occupation by them and the members of their family. The petitioners alleged and claimed themselves to be the owners of the premises bearing No. 5, Seppings Road, Bangalore and further that the 1st respondent A. M. Abdul Rehaman is and has been the tenant of the said premises on a monthly rental of Rupees 150/ -. According to the petitioners' case the tenancy was a monthly tenancy as per English Calendar month. The 1st respondent as per petitioner's case acted contrary to the terms of tenancy, as without taking consent and permission of the petitioner, he has sub-let the premises in favour of 2nd respondent by accepting pagadi, advance and rent and he is also collecting a sum of Rs. 10 per day. That apart, the tenant had sub-let the premises also in breach of provisions of the Karnataka Rent Control Act. Therefore, the tenant i. e. defdt.-Respdt. No 2 was liable to be evicted and the petitioners have been entitled to get the decree for eviction against the 1st respondent-tenant and the persons under him. Petitioners further took the plea and asserted, as mentioned in the Judgment of the Court below that the petitioners required the accommodation in dispute for use of self and members of the family, for the purpose of running the business. Petitioners case has been that, since after grant of tenancy the family members and children born have become capable of carrying on business, so the petitioners require the accommodation in dispute to settle them in business. The claimants-petitioners asserted that, if a decree for eviction is not granted the petitioners are likely to suffer a great hardship but, if it is passed against respondent No. 1, he can secure alternative accommodation and so no hardship would be caused to the respondents.

(3.) THE respondents' technical pleas about the maintainability of the petition were taken into consideration by the Judge of the Small Cause Court.