- (1.) THIS revision petition is filed by the landlord/petitioner against the order of the learned district judge, gulbarga, rejecting his claim under Section 21 (l) (p) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act.
(2.) THE petitioner's claim for eviction of the respondent under Section 21 (1) (a), (b) (i) of the Rent Control Act had been allowed by the trial court but that order came to be set aside by the learned district judge in a revision petition filed by the tenant. Against that order by the learned district judge, the petitioner filed a revision petition before this court and this court had remitted the matter back to the learned district judge to consider the claim of the landlord under Section 21 (l) (p) of the act after giving an opportunity to the respondent/tenant to file objections to that claim and recording further evidence if any. The learned district judge after permitting the respondent to file objections recorded additional evidence in respect of the claim under Section 21 (1) (p) and he has rejected the claim of the petitioner mainly on the ground that the respondent had acquired vacant possession of the building opposite to the petition premises as an additional accommodation to carry on his business and that as such it cannot be said that the respondent has acquired suitable accommodation.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that in view of the undisputed facts that the respondents has evicted his tenant who was occupying the premises opposite to the petition premises not only on the ground that he requires additional accommodation for his business but also on the ground that he is facing threat of eviction from the petition premises, and that as the respondent is now carrying on the business in that premises also, the finding of the learned district judge that the case under Section 21 (1) (p) is not made out cannot be sustained.;