- (1.) IN this revision petition, the petitioner has called in question the correctness of the order dated 8th of december, 1995 made in h. r. c. no. 10320 of 1993 by the court of small causes judge at mayo hal], Bangalore, rejecting the claim of the petitioner-landlady for eviction of the respondent-tenant under Section 21 (1) (h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the act" ).
(2.) A few facts which may be necessary for the disposal of this revision petition, may be briefly stated as follows: (a) the petitioner sought eviction of the respondent on the ground that the petition schedule premises is reasonably and bona fide required by her for the purpose of accommodation for her daughter and her son-in-law and their two sons. The petitioner is residing in a house, which is described as ah outhouse, which is located on the rear side of the petition schedule premises, along with her sister-in-law, who is a spinster. The accommodation available with the petitioner in the premises occupied by her consists of two bedrooms, a prayer hall, a dining-cum-drawing room, a small store room, a bathroom etc. The petition schedule premises consists of ground floor and first floor. The ground floor, even according to the respondent, consists of three bedrooms, one sitting room, one dining hall, one kitchen attached with a small store room; and the first floor consists of two bedrooms, one sitting room, a small verandah, a separate bathroom and a kitchen. (b) it is the case of the petitioner that her daughter and son-in-law do not own any residential building or property in Bangalore and they are residing in a premises belonging to their friend as care takers; and they are unable to find out any suitable accommodation; and since the petitioner and her sister-in-law are of advanced age, the petitioner intends her daughter and son-in-law and their children to live in close proximity with her in order to help her in case of need. It is her further case that since the petitioner is the widow, she requires the presence of her daughter and grand children to help her and look after her welfare and she is unable to accommodate them in the present premises occupied by her for want of accommodation therein; and, therefore, if an order of eviction is not passed against the respondent, she will be put to greater hardship than the respondent. (c) the respondent resisted the claim of the petitioner, inter alia, contending that there are no bona fides in the claim made by the petitioner and the petition schedule premises is not required by the petitioner for use and occupation of the daughter of the petitioner and the members of her. Family and if an order of eviction is passed, the respondent will be put to greater hardship than the petitioner. (d) in the course of the proceedings before the learned small cause judge, the petitioner examined herself as P. W. 1 and her daughter, for whose purpose, the eviction of the respondent from the petition schedule premises is sought, was examined as P. W. 2. Copies of certain documents were marked on her behalf as exhibits p-1 to p-5. The respondent examined himself as r. w. 1. (e) the learned judge, after consideration of the evidence on record, having found that the claim made by the petitioner for eviction of the respondent from the petition schedule premises is bona fide, negatived the claim of the petitioner for eviction of the respondent on the ground that the claim is not reasonable. However, in the course of the Order, the learned judge has rejected the case put forward by the respondent that the petitioner intended to evict the respondent as the respondent refused to enhance the rent as demanded by the petitioner. (f) aggrieved by the said order passed by the learned judge, as noticed by me earlier, this revision petition is presented under sub-section (1) of Section 50 of the act.
(3.) SRI albert, learned counsel appearing for M/s. Rego and rego for petitioner, strenuously contended that the learned judge having found that the claim of the landlady for eviction of the respondent is bona fide, has seriously erred in law in rejecting the eviction petition on the ground that the claim is not reasonable. He pointed out that the finding recorded by the learned judge on this aspect of the matter, is in total disregard of the evidence on record and contradictory in nature. He submitted that the evidence on record clearly establishes, and as a matter of fact, it has gone unchallenged, that the daughter and son-in-law of the petitioner do not have any accommodation of their own in Bangalore and they are residing in their friend's house as care takers. He further pointed out that if the nature of the cross-examination and the evidence on record is analysed, it would be clear that it is also not the case of the respondent that the claim made by the petitioner that her daughter and son-in-law along with their children should reside in the petition schedule premises is not genuine or there is no truth in it, but the only case sought to be made out by the respondent, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that they can stay with the petitioner in the premises presently occupied by her as the accommodation available in the said premises is sufficient; and, therefore, the finding recorded by the learned judge that the claim made by the petitioner for eviction of the respondent is not reasonable, is erroneous in law. He pointed out that undisputedly the accommodation available in the premises occupied by the landlady consists of two bedrooms, a prayer hall, a drawing-cum-dining room, etc. ; and it is not possible to accommodate the family of the daughter of the petitioner consisting of her husband and their two school going children, who were aged 17 years and 15 years in the year 1995 and who are now aged 20 years and 18 years in the premises occupied by the landlady. He further pointed out that this court can also take judicial notice of the fact that the grand children of the petitioner, in course of time, are to be married and their family would grow; and under these circumstances, the learned judge ought to have held that the claim made by the petitioner for eviction of the respondent is reasonable. He also submitted that the reasonableness of the claim made by the petitioner should have been considered in the backdrop of the status of the respondent, who is the managing director of a company, and also the evidence on record that if he is evicted from the petition schedule premises, he will not be put to any hardship and also keeping in mind that his family consists of only the respondent, his wife and a son. He pointed out that the daughter of the respondent, who was residing with him, is admittedly married and has left for united states of america. For all these reasons, the learned counsel submitted that the order under revi sion is liable to be set aside and an order of eviction may have to be passed against the respondent.;