Judgment

UNTWALIA, J.: - The defendant-appellant in this appeal by special leave was a tenant of the suit premises situated in the town of Hubli when the plaintiffs respondents purchased the property from the original owners by two sale deeds executed in August, 1968. The appellant thereafter became a tenant under the respondent The latter gave notice purporting to terminate the former s tenancy and thereafter filed an application under Section 21 (1) (a) and (h) of the Mysore Rent Control Act 1961 hereinafter referred to as the Act, for his eviction from the suit premises consisting of two shops. The appellant resisted the application for eviction on several grounds. The trial Court dismissed it but on appeal by the landlord the District Judge allowed the application for eviction. The tenant filed an application in revision under Section 50 of the Act in the Karnataka High Court. The High Court dismissed the revision application. Hence this appeal.

2. The issue as to the appellant s liability to be evicted on the ground mentioned in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Act was not pursued and eventually given up. The learned Additional Munsif who tried the application in the first instance held against the respondent on the question of the premises being reasonably and bona fide required by the landlord within the meaning of clause (h). He also held that having regard to all the circumstances of the case greater hardship would be caused by passing a decree for eviction than by refusing to pass it. In that view of the matter also as provided in sub-section (4) of Section 21, the trial Court refused to pass a decree. It further held that the lease was for a manufacturing purpose or at least the dominant purpose was a manufacturing one, it was an yearly lease and could not be terminated by less than 6 months notice or in any view of the matter the notice given even treating the tenancy to be a monthly one was illegal and invalid.

3. The learned District Judge in appeal has reversed all the findings of the trial Court. He has held that the landlord required the premises reasonably and bona fide for occupation by himself and that no hardship would be caused to the tenant by passing a decree for eviction. He also held that the lease was not for a manufacturing purpose nor an yearly one. The notice terminating the monthly tenancy was good and valid, The High Court in revision has affirmed the view of the Appellate Court on all the controversial issues.

4. Mr. V. S. Desai, learned counsel for the appellant urged three points in support of this appeal :

(1) That the findings of the lower Appellate Court and the High Court in regard to the reasonable and bona fide requirement of the suit premises for occupation by the landlord are vitiated, in law.

(2) The finding on the question of comparative hardship of the landlord and the tenant has been recorded by committing errors of law.

(3) That the notice terminating the tenancy was invalid because the lease was an yearly one being for a manufacturing purpose and even if the tenancy be a monthly one, the notice was not in accordance with law.

Mr. Y. S. Chitaley controverted the submissions made an behalf of the appellant and added in the alternative that the appellant was a statutory tenant and hence no notice was required to be given before seeking a decree for eviction against him.

5. The appellant had taken the suit premises on rent for a period of one year from the respondent s predecessors-in-interest by a written document Ext. P-12 dated 15-6-1945. The tenancy commenced from 9-4-1945. The respondent purchased the property in August, 1968 and gave a notice on 19-11-1968 which was served on the appellant on 21-11-l968 terminating his tenancy and asking him to deliver possession by the 8th December, l968. We have been taken through the portions of the judgments of all the three courts below and the relevant pieces of documentary and oral evidence adduced by the parties. On the quest