Judgement

BHARUCHA, J.:- Delay condoned.

2. Leave granted.

3. These are cross appeals against the judgment and order of the High Court of Karnataka dismissing the revision petitions filed by the landlord and the tenants who were parties to an eviction proceeding.

4. The proceeding was lodged on the ground that the tenants were in the default of payment of rent and were, therefore, liable to be evicted under the provisions of Section 21(1)(a) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act; that the landlord bona fide and reasonably required the rent premises; and that the tenants had sub-leased the same. The trial Court upheld the landlords case on all three grounds and passed an order of eviction. The learned District Judge reversed the finding of the trial Court on the first two grounds and upheld it on the ground of sub-letting. The High Court rejected the landlords revision petition on the ground of bona fide need. It also rejected the tenants revision petition and upheld the findings of the trial Court and the District Judge that the original tenant. Shankarnarayana Shet, the late husband on the 1st respondent and father of the 2nd and 3rd respondent, had sub-let part of the suit premises to the 4th respondent. The landlord is in appeal on the ground of bona fide need and the tenants in their appeal question the concurrent findings of sub-letting.

5. It is convenient to dispose of the landlords appeal on the ground of bona fide need first. The original plea of the landlord was that he required the suit premises for the mothers residence. The mother expired during the pendency of the proceedings. The landlord had then taken the plea that he wanted the suit premises for his own occupation. The District Judge and the High Court upheld the tenants contention that this subsequent plea required investigation on facts and could not be entertained in a revision petition. We are in no doubt that the High Court was right in the view that it took. The facts necessarily to make out a case relating to the need of the landlord himself to occupy the suit premises are altogether different from those relating to the need of the landlords mother to occupy the suit premises. The facts to establish that the landlord bona fide required the suit premises for his own occupation could not have been ascertained at the stage of the revision petition.

6. This brings us to the appeal in regard to the findings of the High Court, affirming that of the Courts below, that the original tenant Shankarnarayana had sub-let a part of the suit premises. The premises in their entirety may first be described. Abutting a public road is the main building; attached to it is a garage; in the compound, to one side of the main building and behind it, are a well, toilets and an outhouse. The first lease to the original tenant upon the record is dated 16th May, 1968 and it relates to the main building bearing P.B.775/II (which is now numbered Door No.495, as the evidence of the landlord, to which reference shall be made, shows). Another lease was executed on 1st March, 1972 which was for the "tile roofed storey building having No.P.B.775/II". On 21st May, 1973 yet another lease was executed which also was of "a tile roofed storey building having No.P.B.775/II". It was upon this document of 21st May, 1973 that the eviction petition was filed. The averments therein in regard to sub-letting reads thus :

"That the opponents 1 to 3 has sub-leased the outhouse bearing Door No. 497 to the 4th opponent for rent, without the consent and approval of the applicant and also against the terms of the badige agreement".

7. In support of his case the landlord gave evidence and stated in the examination in chief that the residential building was situated by the side of the road; there was a small building, close to the cowpen, bearing Door No.497 and the landlord had been using the same as his storehouse and the original tenant had sub-leased "the said building bearing Door No.497" to the 4th opponent on a