In such circumstance they had advanced a sum of Rs.25,000 to the appellants landlord Nanjappa and obtained a usufructuary mortgage of the tenanted premises and thus having stepped into the shoes of the landlord, they were seeking the eviction of the appellant.
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.2.1980 of the Karnataka High Court in C.R.P. No.
The appellants defence was that the usufructuary mortgage was a sham and numberinal translation created by the landlord with an oblique motive because he had refused to pay higher rent for the premises and secondly the mortgagees were number bona fide in need of the petition premises for their business, The Trial Court rejected both the defences and ordered eviction and the said order has been affirmed PG NO 508 by the Appellate Court and the High Court.
In this eontext it was pointed out by Mr. Datar that the usufructuary mortgage in favour of the respondents was only for a period of 30 months and therefore the mortgage should be treated as a companyourable transaction.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
B. Datar for the Appellant.
Their case was that they were also running a cycle shop in a rented premises but since their landlord had obtained an order of eviction against th In they were bona fide in need of another building to run their business.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by NATARAJAN, J. Does a mortgagee with possession stand on a par with an owner of a building to seek the eviction of a tenant under Section 21 l h of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 for short the Act hereinafter for his bona fide requirement of the tenanted premises for residential or business needs is the question for determination in this appeal by special leave by a tenant.
1006 ot 1980.
The tenanted shop to one Nanjappa and the appellant had taken the same on rent for running a cycle shop.
S. Javali and Ravi P. Wadhwani for the Respondents.
The Trial Court, the Appellate Court and the High Court in revision have answered the question in the affirmative and the aggrieved tenant number represented by his Iegal representatives is before us in appeal.
1287 of 1977.
On the foot of an usufructuary mortgage executed in their favour, the respondents, who are partners, sought the eviction of the appellant under Section 2l 1 h of the Act.
