JUDGMENT

NATARAJAN, J. :— Does a mortgagee with possession stand on a par with an owner of a building to seek the eviction of a tenant under S. 21(1)(h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (for short the Act hereinafter) for his bona fide requirement of the tenanted premises for residential or business needs is the question for determination in this appeal by special leave by a tenant. The trial Court, the appellate Court and the High Court in revision have answered the question in the affirmative and the aggrieved tenant, now represented by his legal representatives is before us in appeal.

2. The tenanted shop belongs to one Nanjappa and the appellant had taken the same on rent for running a cycle shop. On the foot of a usufructuary mortgage executed in their favour, the respondents, who are partners, sought the eviction of the appellant under S. 21(l)(h) of the Act. Their case was that they were also running a cycle shop in a rented premises but since their landlord had obtained an order of eviction against them they were bona fide in need of another building to run their business. In such circumstances they had advanced a sum of Rs. 25,000/- to the appellants landlord Nanjapp