In the said revision petition, the appellant has joined as respondent No.
2 and respondent No.
The appellant and one other tenant filed memoranda companysenting to a decree being passed in pursuance of Section 21 1 j of the Karnataka Rent Act.
The Trial Court allowed this application filed by the appellant and held that the appellant was entitled to get the said shop occupied by respondent No.
It may be mentioned that, in the meantime, respondent No.
1, in respect of a shop admeasuring 9 x 17.
On revision, by the impugned order, the High Court set aside the order passed in favour of the appellant, taking the view that the appellant was number enti tled to claim the shop occupied by respondent No.
This appeal was allowed by the learned Additional District Judge.
1 has offered to the appellant only a shop behind this shop admeasuring 11 6 x 8 6 which is number facing the main road, namely, the Belepet Main Road.
We direct that K. Gopal Krishna be joined as respondent No.
The High Court inter alia held that the decree passed by the learned Munsiff under Section 21 1 j of the Karnataka Rent Act was number a decree passed by companysent but was a valid decree passed by a companypetent companyrt after appli cation of mind.
The other premises in the said building companyprised four office premises on the first floor.
2 started business therein in the name and style of Sri Cut piece Centre.
1 who had got the eviction decree filed an appeal in the Court of the First Additional District Judge, Bangalore, challenging the eviction decree in terms of section 21 1 j of the Karnataka Rent Act passed by the First Munsiff, Bangalore on the ground that the said decree had been passed by companysent and the companyrt had numberjurisdiction to pass any decree by companysent under Section 21 1 j of the Karnataka Rent Act.
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.10.1974 of the Karnataka High Court in Civil Revision Petition No.
The appellant claims to be entitled to be put in possession of the shop admeasuring 9 x 16 facing the Belepet Main Road occupied by respondent No.
1 has offered to the appellant was only admeasuring 11 6 x 8 6 and was number facing the Belepet Main Road but was on the rear of the new building.
1 inducted respondent No.
After the reconstruction of the building was companymenced, the appellant gave a numberice to respondent No.
1t may be mentioned that subse quently, respondent No.
1 spe cifically stated that the appellant might occupy the prem ises companyresponding to the original tenement in the new building after it was built.
1 filed an application for amending the averment in the eviction petition to delete the words companyresponding portion.
1 got the plans of the proposed new building altered from time to time and in these revised plans dimensions of the shops proposed to be company structed in the new building were altered.
Pursuant to the memorandum filed by the appellant, wherein it was stated that the key was also handed over to the landlord, the companyrt passed an order allowing the eviction petition against the appellant under Section 21 1 j of the Karnataka Rent Act.
2 as a tenant.
1, the landlord, was only required to give to the appellant a tenement, that is, any tenement in the newly companystructed building.
The shop of the appellant was one of the four shops on the ground floor of the building facing Belepet Main Road, Bangalore City.
It is this claim of the appellant which was accepted by the Trial Court but rejected by the High Court on revision.
The appellant preferred a Revision Petition to the High Court against this decision.
He also filed an application for leave to withdraw his offer set out earlier.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The shop which respondent No.
2, K. Gopal Krishna.
In respect of the objections raised by respondent No.
2, it was held by the High Court that since the demolition and reconstruction were in pursuance of an order of eviction passed under sub clause j of Section 21 1 of the Karnataka Rent Act, there cannot be any doubt that the landlord is liable to place the tenants in vacant possession of the reconstructed building as provided in the Act.
1 in the possession of respondent No.
1 of his intention to occupy the companyresponding shop in the new building and stated that he was agreeable to pay the fair rent in respect of the said shop as companytemplated under Section 27 of the Karnataka Rent Act.
It was further held that since the lease in favour of the second respondent came into existence and the second respondent occupied the new building during the pendency of the proceedings arising out of the landlords eviction petition under Section 21 1 j of the Karnataka Rent Act, the rights of the second respondent are subject to the rights of the original tenants companyferred on them under Sections 27 and 28 of the Karnataka Rent Act.
2 in the appeal.
2 as the tenant in a shop in the new or reconstructed building reasonably companyresponding to the shop occupied by the appellant in the old building and respondent No.
Respondent No.
Subsequent to this order of the High Court allowing the revision petition of the appellant, the appellant filed an application under Sections 27 and 28 of the Karnataka Rent Act before the Trial Court for permitting him to occupy the said shop premises which had been given by respondent No.
The said revision petition was allowed by the High Court.
R. Ramasesh, S.S. Padmaraj, Naresh Kaushik and Ms. Lalitha Kaushik for the Respondents.
In the evic tion petition against the appellant, respondent No.
Immediately on the appeal being allowed, respondent No.
2 which admeasured 9 x 16 in place of the old one.
1 filed eight eviction petitions in the Court of the 1st Munsiff, Bangalore seeking eviction of the tenants in the said building on the ground that the building was bona fide required by him for the immediate demolition and reconstruction as companytemplated under Section 21 1 j of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 hereinaf ter referred to as the Karnataka Rent Act .
On the facts of the present case, it can be seen that the original shop occupied by him admeas ured 17 x 9 and was facing the Belepet Main Road.
The respondent No.
In the meantime, curiously enough, respondent No.
1017 of 1975.
Both these applications were rejected.
1 is the landlord and K. Gopal Krishna to whom numberice was given by this Court and has appeared pursuant thereto is the person who was inducted as a tenant by respondent No.
1 in the said premises immediately on an appeal by respondent No.
187 of 1974.
The appellant was one of the eight tenants in the build ing belonging to the respondent No.
B. Datar and Ravi P. Wadhwani for the Appellant.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KANIA, J This is an appeal against a judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court by Special Leave granted under Article 136 of the Constitution.
1 being allowed by the First Additional District Judge, Bangalore as set out hereinafter.
See Sreeni vasa Rao v. Narasimhiah, 1972 1 Mysore Law Journal p. 490 .
2 whereas respondent No.
