V S A BASITH SAHEB OF MESSRS V S A BASITH CO IKON MERCHANTS Vs. V H M ABDULLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order of the learned First Additional District Judge of Bangalore in H. B. C. Appeal No. 26 of 1954 confirming that of the learned First Munsiff of Bangalore in H. R. C- No. 164 of 1953 directing the eviction of the petitioner from the schedule premises.

(2.) The facts that have given rise to this revision petition are briefly as follows : The petitioner is admittedly a tenant of the respondent in the schedule premises. The respondent filed an application before the First Munsiff Bangalore, for eviction of the petitioner from the schedule premises on the ground that the premises was granted to the petitioner-tenant for his business purposes, that he had converted the same for residential purposes contrary to the terms of the lease deed executed by him, that the respondent wanted to start business and that therefore he required the premises for his own use. The petitioner-tenant contended therein that the premises was rented out both for business and residential purposes, that the same was not required by the respondent for his bona fide purpose and that the application was mala fide and was liable to be dismissed. The learned Muusiff held that the respondent wanted to start business, that the premises was required for his bona fide use and that the petitioner should be evicted. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the learned District Judge, Bangalore, who confirmed the decision of the lower Court in H. R. C. Appeal No. 26 of 1954. As against this the present revision petition is filed.

(3.) No doubt, there are concurret decisions in favour of the respondent but it appears to me that the petitioner has to succeed in spite of them. The learned District Judge appears to have fallen into an error in thinking that a landlord is entitled to evict a tenant from the premises rented out to him if the landlord intends to start a business. It appears to me that but for the fact that Section 8 (3) (a) of the Mysore House Rent and Accommodation Control Act, 1951 has subsequently been amended by Mysore Act No. XXII of 1954, the learned Judge's order could have been upheld. Section 8 (3) (a) (ii) of the 1951 Act runs as follows :