RAMALINGAIAH SETTY Y Vs. B SATHYA MURTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is filed against the judgment passed in C.M.A. No.4 of 1991 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Madanapalli. The learned Subordinate Judge has passed a common judgment in R.C. No.10 of 1985 and R.C.No.13 of 1985.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are as follows: R.C.C. No. 10 of 1985 was filed by the tenant under Section 8(5) of the Rent Control Act, to permit him to deposit the rents into the Court. R.C.C. No.13 of 1985 was filed by the land-lord on the grounds of wilful default and also bona fide requirement. The Rent Controller passed common order allowing R.C.C. No.10 of 1985 and also R.C.C. No.13 of 1985 holding that the land-lord established his bona fide requirement. In the appeal the Subordinate Judge reversed the findings in R.C.C. No. 13 of 1985 and allowed the same on the ground that there was no bona fide requirement of the land-lord. As far as the finding of the Rent Controller that there was no wilful default, the learned Subordinate Judge concurred with the finding. As against this the present revision is filed by the land-lord.

(3.) The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner-land-lord submitted that the adverse find ing of the learned Subordinate Judge in respect of bonafide requirement is not correct. The land-lord is also Vysya by caste and he wanted to commence petty kirana business in the demised premises. The mulgi is in frontof his house.Though the land-lord is doing some commission business the same is not fetching sufficient income for the maintenance of his family and more over it is not a permanent job. The tenant has another shop and actually doing business there. Therefore the land-lord requires bonafide the demised premises for commencing his own business. I see considerable force in the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. It is true that the land-lord put forth his own personal requirement in the reply affidavit Ex.A-3. He stated that the demised premises is required for the business of his son-in-law. But in the petition he stated that he required the premises for himself. There is no dispute that his son-in-law is also living with him. The requirement of the premises by any one of the family members is certainly the requirement of the land-lord. If the land-lord wanted to commence a petty kirana business, it does not require any preparation and also huge capital. In view of this the decisions relief upon by the learned Subordinate Judge have no application to the facts of the case.