Dr. Ar. Lakshmanan, J. - (1.) The matter arises under the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961. The unsuccessful tenants are the appellants in these appeals. The respondent/landlord filed rent control petitions before the Court of Small Causes against the appellants, inter alia, under the provisions of Section 21(h) and (j) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act. The Court of Small Causes dismissed the petitions. The landlord filed revision petitions, inter alia, challenging the order of the Court of Small Causes. On 19-11-1998, the High Court allowed all the revision petitions by a common judgment and directed that the tenants shall vacate and deliver the premises under their respective occupation to the landlord. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment of the High Court, the tenants have approached this Court seeking special leave to appeal.
(2.) We heard Mr. P. B. Menon, learned senior counsel for the appellants and Mr. Shakil Ahmed Syed, learned counsel for the respondent. Mr. Menon submitted five submissions in support of his contention. They are : 1. The High Court has no jurisdiction to re-appreciate and evaluate the evidence on record which has resulted in arriving at the conclusion which is manifest in the judgment and on this ground the impugned judgment/order ought to be set aside by this Court. 2. The High Court has failed to render a correct finding on the comparative hardship. 3. The reasoning and finding of the High Court on each and every point referred to in the impugned judgment is bad in law, perverse and against the weight of the evidence on record of the case and as such has resulted in substantial failure and miscarriage of justice to the petitioners. 4. The High Court was not right in law in holding that the landlord proved his bona fide requirement of the premises in question. 5. The finding of the High Court that the building is not in a dilapidated condition is against the real facts.
(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent took us through the pleadings and the order and judgment passed by the Rent Controller and also by the High Court. According to him, the High Court has jurisdiction under Section 50 to interfere with the findings of fact and that the High Court is justified in interfering with the trial Courts finding based on abundant materials. He would also submit that other findings rendered by the High Court in ordering eviction are unassailable and supported by cogent and convincing reasons. He would pray for the dismissal of the special leave petition. As already noticed, the eviction petition was filed under Section 21(h) and (j) which reads thus :- "21. Protection of tenants against eviction.- (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract, no order or decree for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made by any Court or other authority in favour of the landlord against the tenant : Provided that the Court may on an application made to it, make an order for the recovery of possession of a premises on one or more of the following grounds only, namely :- (a) ********** ********** ********** ********** (h) that the premises are reasonably and bona fide required by the landlord for occupation by himself or any person for whose benefit the premises are held or where the landlord is a trustee of a public charitable trust, that the premises are required for occupation for the purposes of the trust; or (i) ********** (j) that the premises are reasonably and bona fide required by the landlord for the immediate purpose of demolishing them and such demolition is to be made for the purpose of erecting a new building in place of the premises sought to be demolished; or (k) ********** " ;