The respondent companytested the petition denying the personal requirement of the appellant and taking the plea that the house in occupation of the appellant being a big house has enough accommodation for his residence and his professional activities.
Aggrieved by the said order of the learned Rent Controller, the respondent filed revision before the High Court which was allowed by the impugned order.
2001 Supp 4 SCR 590 The following Order of the Court was delivered This appeal brings under challenge the validity of the order of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in H.R.R.P. No.
The appellant is the landlord of premises being number No.
The trial companyrt on appreciation of the evidence found that the need of the respondent was established.
On companysidering the evidence placed on record, the learned Rent Control ler found that a case under Section 21 l h was made out and ordered eviction of the respondent on July 5, 1995.
It is against that order that the appellant is in appeal before us, by special leave.
The appellant filed eviction petition seeking eviction of the respondent on two grounds but only one ground under Section 21 l h of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 for short the Act survives he reasonably and bona fide requires accommodation for his personal occupation, both for residence as well as for professional requirements.
1300 which was subsequently enhanced to Rs.
The facts are number in dispute.
1800 per month.
12/1, Prim rose Road, Bangalore for short, the premises of which the respondent is tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.
The appellant, finding it difficult to get along with his father and the step mother on account of day to day disputes, invoked the jurisdiction of the Rent Con troller under Section 21 l h of the Act seeking eviction of the respondent.
The premises in question belongs to the appellant and that he let it out to the respondent sometime in 1976 on a monthly rent of Rs.
1256 of 1995 on February 22, 1999 allowing the revision filed by the respondent respondents 1 to 3 are avatars of the same companypany and are referred to as, the respondent and dismissing the eviction petition filed by the appellant.
