JUDGMENT

R.C. Lahoti, J.-The suit premises are a residential house comprised in CTS Nos. 936 & 939 of Ward II of Hubli City. The premises are owned by a temple - a religious institution but not under the management of the State Government. The adoptive father of the respondent, Late Shankarbhat, was pujari and manager of the temple. The appellant was inducted as a tenant in the suit premises by Late Shankarbhat. Shankarbhat has, through a registered deed of adoption, adopted the respondent as his son who is presently pujari and manager of the temple. The appellant has been paying rent to the respondent. It is not in doubt, nor in dispute, that whatever be the ownership of the suit premises the respondent is certainly the rent collector.

2. The respondent claiming himself to be the owner of the premises filed a suit for eviction of the tenant-appellant on the grounds available under Clauses (h) and (p) of sub-Section (1) of Section 21 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter the Act , for short). Availability of ground under clause (h) has been negated while the Court of Munsif upheld the entitlement of respondent to a decree under Clause (p). The appellant preferred a r