Chandrakantaraj Urs, J. - (1.) The questions that fall to be answered in this Revision Petition is whether the Learned District Judge committed an error of law in applying the ratio of the decision of this Court in the case of Gopichand Balwantharao and Another vs. Pundalik Govindappu and Others in coming to the conclusion that on the available evidence in the case landlords had not made out a case of then need for their own use and occupation, the tenanted premises from which they had sought the eviction of the tenant and whether the Learned Judge was correct in blindly reading that the petitioners landlords had not pleaded specifically that the tenant had built a building of his own for non-residential use and therefore liable for eviction under Clause (p) of sub-section (l) of Section 21 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
(2.) The facts may be briefly stated as follows : The landlords are five brothers who carry on some kind of a trade in a rented premises for their livelihood. They own the petition premises. The shop is situated on Bazaar Street of Gadag. That premises was leased to the tenant Shekharayya who carries on business of storing and selling electrical and allied appliances. The petitioners wanted to 1.1977 (1)KLJ38 expand their business and specifically start an electrical and watch repair shop in the premises occupied by the tenant, as one of them, the 5th petitioner had acquired proficiency in that field by training. They also made it clear in the petition that the tenant had, on the same road about 200 ft. away from the petition premises, built a suitable shop premises where he had shifted his business of electrical appliances and had kept the petition premises vacant without carrying on any specific business therein. By way of caution, they had issued a notice of eviction though they have alleged that they were not required to do so in regard to the statutory tenancies.
(3.) The tenant resisted the eviction petition on the grounds that the petition premises was not genuinely required by the landlords; that the landlords were carrying on their business in a rented premises and their intention of doing their business activities therein was not bona fide. The petition was motivated to demand enhanced rent and the tenant would be put to greater hardship if he is evicted from the petition premises.;