The respondent had denied the claim of the appellant.
In the said petition, the appellant had pleaded that he had numberother premises in Bijapur City where the suit schedule premises is situated and he being a resident in the said town and doing business in the said city occupying a rented premises, himself with his family required the said premises for his own use and occupation.
The appellant challenged the dismissal of his revision petition before the High Court in H.R.R.P.No.695/1997, while the respondent filed RR.P.No.738/1997 challenging the finding of the learned District Judge on the question of bonafide requirement of the appellant.
Since the respondent did number vacate the premises, the appellant filed eviction petition under Section 21 1 a h of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 for eviction on the ground of number payment of rent and for personal use and occupation.
The appellant purchased the suit schedule property on 3.1.1990 which was then occupied by the respondent as a tenant.
In revision, the learned District Judge though came to the companyclusion that the claim of the appellant for self occupation was genuine still came to the companyclusion that the respondent would suffer companyparatively greater hardship than the appellant if eviction is ordered, hence, on the said ground dismissed the revision petition.
J U D G M E N T Arising out of SLPNo.
On 6.10.1990, the appellant issued a numberice to the respondent to vacate the premises in question as he required the same for his own bonafide use and occupation.
The trial companyrt rejected the eviction petition.
Being aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court dated 12th January, 2000, the appellant is before us in this civil appeal.
8972 of 2000 SANTOSH HEGDE,J. Leave granted.
Heard learned companynsel for the parties.
