S V KRISHNAMACHARI ALIAS KRISHNAMACHARI Vs. BHATIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two revisions arise out of an eviction proceedings initiated by thre landlord under the Provisions of Section 21 (l) (h) and (p) of the kar- nataka Rent Control Act ("the act" for short ). The impugned order is questioned by the landlord and tenant aggrieved by the adverse order passed by the trial court against them by allowing the eviction petition filed under Section 21 (l) (h) of the act and dismissing the petition under Section 21 (l) (p) of the act. The landlord who initiated eviction petition under the Provisions of Section 21 (1) (a) of the act has given up the same at the trial. The jural relationship of the parties is not in dispute. The eviction petition is taken under Section 21 (1) (h) and (p) of the act. The requirement is pleaded by the landlord at para 2 of his petition. It is his case that he is a goldsmith carrying on business in his premises at yelahanka town and he requires the petition premises to carry on his business as his landlord has been demanding him to vacate the premises. It is also his case that he has got two shop premises in yelahanka town, one of his sons is running a jewellery shop in one of the said shops and the petitioner has got two sons and his sons are living separately having independent avocation. The respondent-tenant is in occupation of the petition premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 400/-; the petition premises is situate in the business place and near the bus stand and is more convenient and suitable to carry on the goldsmith work and he can cater to the needs of his customers. Hence, the premises is required for his bona fide use and occupation.

(2.) IT is also his case that the respondent-tenant is running his own independent shop situate at hospital road, yelahanka which he has acquired after he becoming a tenant in the schedule shop premises and therefore, he is liable to be evicted.

(3.) THE tenant has disputed the landlord's reasonable requirement to occupy his own premises. It is the tenant's contention that originally there were four portions owned by the landlord out of which, three portions were let out to him during July 1978 on a monthly rent of Rs. 200a and advance of Rs. 1,000/ -. The tenant was residing with his family members on the hind two portions and carrying on his business in front portion. Landlord constructed a residential portion abutting the rear portion of the premises and occupied the same. At that time, the landlord requested the tenant to vacate one portion which was adjacent and abutting the portion in occupation of the landlord. He therefore vacated the same. Thereafter, the landlord requested him to vacate one more shop to start his goldsmith business in the rear portion along with his son. The tenant complied with the said request and vacated the said portion also. The landlord thereafter constructed the first floor just above the front portion of the building. The landlord's son hari prasad occupied the 1st floor portion. Therefore, the entire requirement of the landlord is met. Therefore, there are no bona fides in the present petition to occupy the petition premises in which the tenant has been carrying on his jewellery business and the petition is filed with oblique motives. He also contended that he has no other premises of his own and he would be put to great hardship if an order of eviction is granted. He has filed additional objections further detailing the accommodation available to the landlord, specially after he allowed the landlord to occupy the major portion of the tenanted premises.