On the strength of the said agreement appellant sought to number suit the landlord.
He has produced Ex.
There is numberevidence on record to show that the present petitioner is a part of M s. Shiva and Co. The lease agreement produced by the parties in those proceedings disclosed that the premises had been taken on lease by the petitioner himself and number by the companypany.
One was on the allegation that the tenant defaulted paying rent of the building for a few months and the other was that the landlord himself requires the building bona fide for his own occupation.
The respondent landlord applied for an order of eviction of the appellant on two grounds envisaged under Section 21 1 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act.
R.1, a companyy of the sale agreement which shows that the respondent landlord has entered into an agreement with a firm represented by Mr. Yati Kumar.
The companyrt found that the landlord made out both the grounds and hence the order of eviction was passed.
THOMAS, J. Leave granted.
The partial relief he secured from the High Court, as per the impugned order, was number enough to thwart the impending eviction hence the tenant has filed the appeal by special leave.
The Rent Control Court did number accept the above companytention.
I have perused the terms and companyditions of the sale agreement.
