In the said suit respondent filed an application under section 151 CPC read with Order XXIII Rule 1 4 b companytending that as the previous suit was withdrawn, the present suit was number maintainable and was also barred under section 45 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 hereinafter referred to as the Rent Act .
Therefore, by memo dated 6th December, 1994 the appellant submitted as under The petitioner does number press the petition for the present and he prays that the petition may be disposed of accordingly.
x 7 ft.
10292 of 1998 for recovering of possession of the suit premises on the ground that as his practice has picked up, he wanted bigger office as present office premises admeasuring 8 ft.
On 24th August, 1998, appellant filed H.R.C. No.
The tenant Balraj died on 3rd February, 1997 and the premises at present is occupied by his son, the respondent herein.
which is part of his residence to the respondent at the rent of Rs.200/ per month.
in the rear side of the suit premises which is let out to the respondent.
Relying upon the decision rendered by this Court in Surajmal vs. Radhe Shyam 1988 3 SCC 18, the trial companyrt by judgment and order dated 24th July, 1999 rejected the said application.
x 7 ft.
x 8 ft.
Against the said judgment and order, the respondent preferred R.R.P. No.845 of 1999 before the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore.
Shah, J. Leave granted.
He filed H.R.C. No.2757 of 1992 for bona fide requirement on the ground that his son needed it to start a new business and also for his office purposes as he required access to his chamber by providing a door in the companymon wall and for keeping library books.
It is the say of the appellant that he let out suit premises admeasuring 10ft.
After retiring from service he started practice as an Advocate in a small room admeasuring 8 ft.
was number sufficient to accommodate his books as well as clients.
The tenant Balraj promised that he would vacate the premises and hand over vacant possession of the premises.
