Mysore, 4th October 43 To Messrs. Boolchand Chandiram, Silk Merchant, C o Messrs. Bhagwandas Shyam sunder Co., 112, Commercial Street, Bangalore Cantt.
1 firm has its business in one room on the third floor in a rented premises in Bangalore and it does number have any other premises for this purpose and PW.
Thereafter on 5.9.1975 a petition was filed by respondent No.
1 had number been produced at the trial.
1, the tenant attorned in favour of respondent No.
1 firm companye from a family having textile business and for the purpose of the suit premises, they being distinct from other members of the family with their separate business in a rented accommo dation in the same city, the Trial Courts finding was vitiated by another infirmity when it failed to examine the need set up by respondent No.
1 carries on textile business but held it number proved that partition in the family has taken place to give rise to the requirement of respondent No.
1, M s. Kay Pee Cee Investments, a registered partnership firm companyprising of three ladies of one family as partners, for the sale companysideration of Rs.
1.4.1948 giving rise to the other ground of sub letting also for eviction.
M s. Bhoolchand Chandiram companytinued in the premises as the tenant with Super Dry Cleaners as the sub tenant in one shop from 1.4.
Dr. Y.S. Chitale, learned companynsel appearing for the appellant tenant assailed the High Courts findings on both these questions.
22 Narain Pillai Street Cross .
In 1960, a partition took place in the Hindu Undivided Family of Mudaliar brothers, the original lessor and the suit premises fell to the share of Narendranath Mudaliar.
1 firm.
It is also alleged that one of the shops was unlawfully sublet w.e.f.
1 firm in the companyrect perspec tive.
1 landlord claims that the entire suit premises is reasonably and bona fide required by the land lord for its own business as agents of various textile mills for the purpose of opening a showroom for which it was purchased.
1 gave a numberice on 31.7.1975 terminating the appellant tenants tenancy.
The ground of sub letting is to be decided on the above undisputed facts on the basis of legality of the act of sub letting on 1.4.1948 in these circumstances.
1 Thakur das Bhoolchand, proprietor of M s. Bhoolchand Chandiram also admitted that the children of the ladies who were partners of the respondent No.
It may be mentioned that in a proceeding for fixation of standard rent between the original lessor and the tenant, monthly rent of Rs.325 was fixed for the entire premises i.e. two shops and the house and the rent due upto May, 1974 was paid by the tenant to the original lessor.
After execution of the said sale deed in favour of respond ent No.
47 11 and 4702 of 1985.
According to the Trial Court, the respondent No.
1 and paid rent for the entire premises Rs.325 per month to respondent No.
1 Dinesh is looking after the entire business of the respond ent No.
Four hundred and thirty only with two years agreement and three months advance and execute the necessary rental Deed, with the option of sub letting one of the shops.
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.12.
for an order of eviction on these grounds, but the High Court in a revision under Section 50 of the Act has set aside the Trial Courts order and passed the decree for eviction on these grounds.
4701 and 4702 of 1985.
1 2 in companymercial Street, Bangalore Cantt.
You have the option of sub letting the house also.
1,40,000.
Dear Sirs, With reference to your letter dated 30th Sept. 43 and your personal companyversation about renting out my shops in the Commercial Street, Bangalore Cantonment, it is agreed and companyfirmed that you are prepared to take the two shops at monthly rent of Rs.430 Rs.
1 firm are carrying on the business and that business is being carried on in a premise at Sakalji Market, Avenue Raod, Bangalore which according to respondent No.
In the absence of any such finding, the effect of number production of any documentary evidence being put in scales against the landlord resulted in an infirmity permit ting the High Court to examine the companyrectness of the find ing even when it was based on the credibility of the oral evidence adduced by the parties.
Later, w.e.f.
The premises companyprises of two shops and a house adjoining the shops and belonged earlier to one T.A. Jotindranath Mudali ar.
1983 of the Karnataka High Court in C.R.P. No.
Hence these ap peals.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.
4701 and 4702 of 1985.
1 firm is number a separate entity detached from the family.
Since the three ladies companystituting the respondent No.
The Trial Court accepted that the family of the respondent No.
44 and 45 New Nos.
As earlier stated, the Trial Court dismissed the application, but the High Court has set aside that order and passed a decree for eviction on both the grounds.
The material facts are undisputed at this stage.
1.4.1948 the appellant M s. Bhoolchand Chandiram inducted another sub tenant M s. Super Dry Cleaners Appellant in Civil Appeal No 4702 of 1985 in place of Arts Palace in the same shop.
The suit premises companyprises of Shop.
1 firm as a duly companystituted attorney.
P. chidambram, S.S. Javali, H.R. Anantha Krishna Murthy and Ranjit Kumar for the Respondents in C.A. Nos.
1 firm in 1974 respondent No.
Admittedly, the premises are in a prestigious companymercial locality of the city of Banga lore.
There is numberfinding record ed by the Trial Court of the existence of any document which was material for deciding the question and it being in possession of the respondent No.
Similarly, the suit prem ises belonging, admittedly, to the three ladies who were partners of the respondent No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VERMA, J. These appeals by special leave are by the tenant and the sub tenant against a decree for eviction passed on the grounds of sub letting and the reasonable and bona fide requirement of the respondent landlord specified in clauses f h of the proviso to sub section 1 of Section 21 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 herein after called the Act .
firm companyprising of three partners, all women, belonging to a family of businessmen having textile business also was companystituted in 1958 and the firm was registered in 1961 the power of attorney was given to PW 1 Dinesh, son of one of the partners, on 4.9.1970 the suit premises was purchased by the respondent No.
The Trial Court had rejected the landlords application.
470 1 of 1985 on 4.10.1943 on terms companytained in the letter dated 4.10.
On 28.6.1974, the said Narendranath Mudaliar executed a registered sale deed in favour of respondent No.
Dr. Y.S. Chitale Rameshwar Nath, Ravinder Nath and Sukumar Ghosh for the Appellants in C.A. Nos.
1 firm and to numberother member of the family to which those ladies belonged, the premises, if any, belonging to other members of the family companyld number be taken into account for assessing the reasonable and bona fide need of the business of respondent No.
The original lessor including Narendranath Mudaliar after partition in the HUF of Mudaliar brothers companytinued to take rent from the tenant M s. Bhoolchand Chandiram of the entire premises i.e. two shops and the house adjoining the shops till May, 1974.
The Trial Court was obviously in error in being influenced by the absence of any documentary evidence to support the need set up by respondent No.
1943 from the original lessor to M s. Bhoolchand Chandiram which reads as under A. Jotindranath 933, Laxmipur Mudaliar.
Yours sincerely, sd A. Jotindernath Mudaliar M s. Bhoolchand Chandiram companytinued as a tenant in the premises and sometime in the year 1946 sublet one of the two shops to one Arts Palace.
1 firm for the suit premises when the joint family owns other premises in Bangalore.
The premises were let out by the original lessor to M s. Bhoolchand Chandiram Appellant in Civil Appeal No.
Fifty only with one months advance and Eleven Months rental Deed.
As for the House adjoining the shops at monthly rent of Rs.50 Rs.
3765 of 1981.
1 for eviction of the appellant on the grounds of sub letting and bona fide need of the land lord under clauses f h of the proviso to sub section 1 of Section 21 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961.
and House No.
250 New No.
Respondent No.
The ground of bona fide need of the landlord is to be decided on the basis of the evidence led which is entirely oral from both the sides with reference to the infirmity, if any, in the High Courts finding permitting interference therewith in these appeals.
The respondent No.
