be tenant had installed some machinery in the premises.
Mirle N. Lakshminaraynappa O. P. Malhotra, S. S. Khanduja Ganpat Rai, for the respondent.
K. Venkatarangaiengar G. L. Sanghi, J. B. Dadachanji C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, for the appellant.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated April 9, 1965 of the Mysore High Court in Civil Revision Petition No.
The respondent, K. P. Papiah Setty, is the landlord.
The III Additional District Judge, however, held that under s. 8 3 a ii the landlord was number entitled to possession of the premises in dispute unless and until he was prepared to vacate the shops in which he was trading at the time.
1044 of 1962, filed under s. 17 of the Mysore House Rent and Accommodation Control Act, 1951 Mysore Act 30 of 1951 hereinafter referred to as the Act whereby the High Court set aside the order passed by the III Additional District Judge, Bangalore.
The tenant having obtained special leave, the matter is number before us.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Sikri, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Mysore in Civil Revision Petition No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The landlord tiled an application under s.8 3 a ii of theAct for the eviction of the tenant on the ground that he required the premises in dispute for his own use and occupation.
281, Old Tharagupet, Bangalore City.
He had purchased the premises for his own use and occupation, namely, for the purpose of shifting his business which hewas carrying on in a rented building to the premises in dispute.
It is number necessary to give the other allegations made in the application as both the First Munsiff, Bangalore, and the III Additional District Judge, Bangalore, have found that the landlord required the premises for his bonafide use and occupation, namely, for shifting his business from the rented premises to the premises in dispute.
The III Additional Judge had set aside the order of the First Munsiff, Bangalore, who had directed the eviction of the tenant from the premises in dispute.
The appellant before us, Padmanabha Setty, hereinafter referred to as the tenant, was the tenant of a number residential premises No.
1044 of 1962.
756 of 1965.
