The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and applicability of O. 23, R. 1, C. P. C. in the context of eviction proceedings under the Rent Control Act.

( 1 ) THIS revision petition is directed against the order of the District Judge, Bellary, in H. R. C. Appeal No. 6 of 1973, filed against the order dated 29-1-1973. The brief facts of the case are, that the petitioner-Papinayakanahalli Jadiyappa filed a petition for eviction under Section 21 (1) (h) and (j) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), in respect of Door No. 297, ward No. 10 situated at Hospet, Bellary District. His case was, that he had purchased the property, under a registered sale deed, dated 14-6-1966, from its original owner Veerabasamma and that since he was carrying on his business of hardware articles, in two small bunks, leased to him, by the City Municipal Council, Hospet, and as the said premises were unsuitable, inadequate and insufficient for his business and further as the rents in respect of the two bunks were being periodically enhanced by the City Municipal Council, Hospet, he required the premises to carry on his hardware business. He also pleaded that the premises in question were in a dilapidated condition needing extensive repairs and re-roofing. It is averred in the petition, that the petitioner had filed HRCOP No. 5 of 1967 on an earlier occasion and the same was not pressed by filing a memo on 7-1-1969 and it was dismissed on the same day. The present petition is filed on 18-4-1970. Before filing the present petition, he had issued a notice of termination on 10-3-1969 asking the tenant to vacate the premises by 15-12-1969. The tenant gave a reply on 8-12-1969 denying the requirement of the landlord and he also contended that he is not liable to be evicted. In the proceedings the tenant further contended that the present petition namely, H. R. C. Appeal No. 7 of 1970 was barred under Sec. 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as also, under O. 23, R. 1 (3), C. P. C. and therefore the petition is liable to be rejected. On these pleadings, the learned Munsiff raised the following issues :- "1. Whether there has been a valid termination of tenancy? 2. Whether the petitioner's claim for eviction of the opponent tenant, is hit by Section 45 of the Mysore Rent Control Act? 3. Whether the petitioner's claim is barred under the provisions of Order 23 Rule 1 (3), C. P. C. ? 4. Whether the petitioner proves that his requirement of the petition schedule property, for his personal use and occupation, is bona fide and reasonable? 5. Whether he further proves that his requirement of the petition schedule property for purpose of immediate demolition and erection of a new building, is bona fide and reasonable? 6. In whose favour would lie the balance of convenience? 7. Whether the petitioner is entitled for possession of the petition schedule property? 8. What order?"

( 2 ) THE learned Munsiff answered issue No. 1 in favour of the landlord and held that the claim was not barred in view of the provisions contained under O. 23, R. 1 (3); and since the requirement of the landlord was bona fide and reasonable, and it was a recurring right, he decreed the suit, granting two months time to the tenant to vacate the premises. The said order is passed on 29-1-1973. Against the said eviction decree, the tenant filed H. R. C. Appeal No. 6 of 1973 before the District Judge, Bellary. During the pendency of the appeal, the original landlord Jadiyappa expired and his legal representatives were brought on record. In the appeal, the learned District Judge set down the aforestated points for consideration. He concurred with the trial Court on all the issues excepting on issue No. 3, which dealt with the bar contained in O. 23, R. 1 (3), C. P. C. The learned District Judge held that in view of the dismissal of HRC OP No. 5 of 1967, the present petition, which was founded on similar grounds, was barred under the said provision. In view of this finding, the learned District Judge allowed HRC Appeal No. 6 of 1973 and dismissed the eviction petition. Against the said order, the