K RAMACHANDRA MAYYA Vs. SANJEEVA S PUTRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a tenant's revision petition filed against the order of eviction passed in Revision (Rent)Petition No. 138 of 1986 on the file of the learned District Judge, D. K. , Mangalore, confirming the order of eviction passed by learned II Additional Munsiff, Mangalore, in H. R. C. No. 67 of 1981 on the ground under Section 21 (1) (p) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act ('act' for short ). For the sake of convenience, I shall refer to the parties as arrayed in the Trial Court.

(2.) THE original petitioner died during the pendency of this proceeding and his L. Rs are brought on record. Petitioner filed H. R. C. No. 67 of 1981 in the Trial Court seeking for eviction of the respondent-tenant from the petition schedule premises on the ground under Section 21 (1) (b), (c), (f) and (p) of the Act alleging that, he is in occupation of the petition premises bearing Door No. 5-4, situated in Kotenkar Compound at Idya Village within the limits of Surathkal Municipality, mangalore Taluk, on a monthly rent of Rs. 155/- and that, he is also in occupation of another premises belonging to the petitioner bearing No. 5-5/1 as a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 136/ -. It is his further case that, the old numbers bearing 5-20, 5-21 and 5-22 of the petition premises consist of three tenements. Respondent has taken the petition schedule premises for his residential purpose. According to the petitioner, the respondent resided in the said premises till the month of May 1980 and thereafter, shifted his residence to newly acquired premises at B. Narayana Rao's compound located in Survey No. 50/2 near Kaveri Sana of Idya Village. Petitioner therefore sought for the eviction of the respondent from the petition premises on the ground under Section 21 (1) (p) of the Act. Petitioner also alleged that, the respondent has converted a portion of the petition premises as storeroom + godown, contrary to the agreement and, he has stocked materials like aluminium vessels, stainless steel materials, stationery books and papers, plastic goods, drums of paints etc. , and that, he is doing business in other premises no. 5-5/1. It is further alleged that the respondent had erected permanent structures in the petition premises altering the original premises and he has sublet a portion to one R. D. Costa, who has stored biscuit tins, soft drinks etc. , in that premises. Petitioner also alleged that, the respondent has caused damage to the petition premises to the extent of Rs. 12,000/- and sought for the eviction of the respondent on the grounds under Section 21 (1) (b), (c) and (f) of the Act. Respondent filed his objections in the Trial Court contending that, he has taken the three tenements in the premises at different times and in the first instance, premises bearing Door No. 5-20 was taken on lease on a monthly rent of Rs. 50/- and, premises bearing No. 5-21 was taken on lease on a monthly rent of Rs. 45/ -. Both the said premises were taken for non-residential purpose. Premises No. 5-22 was taken subsequently by him for residential purpose on a monthly rent of Rs. 60/ -. He denied that, he made any alteration in the petition premises or that he had put up any permanent structures. He also denied that, he has shifted his residence in the month of may 1980 to B. Narayana Rao's compound. He also denied the allegation made that he had sublet portion to one R. D. Costa. He contended that, he is continuing in occupation of petition premises bearing old Door No. 5-22, making use of the same for his residential use and the other two premises are being used by him for non-residential purpose.

(3.) TRIAL Court recorded the evidence adduced by both parties and allowed the eviction petition only on the ground under Section 21 (1) (p) of the Act. The Trial Court held that, the said ground under Section 21 (1) (p) of the Act is established on the basis of the evidence adduced relating to the subsequent development which was brought to the notice of the Court by the petitioner in the evidence adduced by him that the respondent acquired vacant possession of the suitable new building through his wife in Thadambail locality in the year 1983. Aggrieved by the said order of eviction passed by the Trial Court, tenant filed Revision Petition No. 138 of 1986 in the First revisional Court. Landlord also filed Rent Revision Petition No. 190 of 1986 aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Munsiff dismissing the eviction petition on the ground under Section 21 (1) (b), (c) and (f) of the Act. After hearing the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel appearing in the First Re-visional Court, learned District Judge dismissed both the revision petitions, confirming the order of eviction passed against the respondent under Section 21 (1) (p)of the Act. The tenant, therefore, approached this Court in the present revision petition.