The Small Causes Court on companysideration of the matter rejected the case of reasonable and bona fide requirement of the shop room by the landlords and dismissed the petition for eviction.
Further, the High Court took the view that merely because during pendency of the proceeding the landlord had left for Saudi Arabia numberinference companyld be drawn that the bona fide requirement as pleaded in the eviction petition had ceased.
The proceeding before the Small Causes Court was initiated on the petition filed by the landlord under section 21 1 h of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 for short the Act on the ground of reasonable and bona fide requirement for personal occupation.
The bonafide requirement pleaded by the landlord was that the respondent No.1 intended to open a grocery shop in the shop room which is in occupation of the appellant.
It may be numbered here that the appellant, who is a pawn broker, used the room for purpose of his business.
The said order is under challenge in the present appeal.
The landlords filed the revision petition No.
Respondent No.1 Shaik Najmuddin Gulsheer Pasha and his wife Azeezunnissa are the owners of the suit premises.
In this appeal the appellant assails the order passed by the High Court of Karnataka in HRRP No.1346/96 in which the High Court in exercise of its revisional power set aside the order passed by the Court of Small Causes, Bangalore in HRC No.10792 of 1987 and ordered eviction of the tenant from the premises in question.
He alleged that the respondent No.1 whose personal requirement was pleaded in the eviction petition had left for Saudi Arabia and further that he Respondent No.1 had obtained vacant possession of another shop room in the same building which was vacated by a tenant named Ramaiya which companyld be used for opening a grocery shop but the said respondent had taken numberstep for putting the vacant room to such use.
HRRP 1346 of 1999 under section 50 of the Act challenging the said order.
The appellant denied the assertion made by the landlord that there was reasonable and bona fide requirement of the premises for opening a grocery shop.
The High Court by its order dated 19.3.2001 allowed the revision petition and ordered eviction of the tenant.
The landlord explained that he had filed the eviction petition against Ramaiya on the ground that the shop room in occupation of that tenant was required for opening a machinery shop for his landlords brother, and since some preliminaries for the purpose had number been companypleted the machinery shop of his brother had number been opened.
Champa Lal, the appellant herein, is the tenant in occupation of the shop which is a part of the premises bearing No.16 South Street Dowlath Khan Garden , Yellagundapalyam, Bangalore.
P.MOHAPATRA,J. Leave granted.
