B. N. MALLIKARJUNA, J.

( 1 ) HEARD the learned counsel for both the parties. Perused the papers.

( 2 ) ). These two revisions HRRP Nos. 1814/1996 and 81/1997 arise out of the order dated 30th September, 1996 of the XIII Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Mayo Hall, Bangalore, in H. R. C. No. 10279/1991. Landlady (first petitioner) Girijamma instituted eviction proceedings under Section 21 (1) (h) and (p) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961. This application was opposed by the respondent. Therefore, after contest, by order dated 30-9-1996, eviction under Section 21 (1) (h) was granted and the respondent was directed to vacate and hand over vacant possession of the premises within three months. Eviction under Section 21 (1) (p) was refused. It is, therefore, the tenant has filed HRRP No. 1814/1996 challenging the eviction order under Section 21 (1) (h) and the landlady HRRP No. 81/1997 challenging the order refusing to evict under Section 21 (1) (p) of the Act. This common order dispose of both the revision petitions.

( 3 ) THE undisputed facts are that the leased premises belonged to one Ganapathy, husband of the first petitioner and father of petitioners 2 to 4. He had leased the premises now in occupation of the tenant in about the year 1970 and some time thereafter additional area was also leased, the rent at the beginning of the tenancy was Rs. 100/- a month and after leasing the other area, it was increased from time to time and on the date of petition, the rent paid was Rs. 400/- a month. In the year 1986, petitioners instituted eviction petition in H. R. C. No. 10701/1986 under Section 21 (1) (h), (p), (b) and (f) of the Rent Control Act. During the pendency of the said petition, on 14-2-1989 father of the respondent died and thereafter on 14-9-1989, parties entered into a compromise and accordingly, the respondent tenant surrendered an area measuring 23 feet x 23 feet and retained the disputed area which was originally leased in the year 1970 and accordingly, the petition was closed on 14-9-1989. Again in the year 1991, the present eviction petition is filed on the ground under Section 21 (1) (h) and (p) of the Act.

( 4 ) THE petitioner's case in brief is that the second petitioner Smt. Vijaya, daughter of the first petitioner and Ganapathy is a divorcee and therefore, there is need for her to settle in life independently. She is trained in tailoring and therefore, she needs separate accommodation to start tailoring and also to live separately. Further it is pleaded that the third petitioner Sri Shivakumar who is now dead, his wife and two children live in the first floor along with petitioners 1 and 2, accommodation available in the first floor is not sufficient, women folk are not on good terms and therefore, they are cooking separately and further he needs the passage for parking the scooter. The accommodation available in the first floor is not sufficient for his two children to live and continue their studies. It is also said that the first petitioner Girijamma is aged and ailing, she has Diabetes and Blood Pressure, she cannot climb the stairs, she needs to come down quite often which is not possible. Therefore, she needs accommodation in the ground floor and a separate room for taking rest. Subsequently by an amendment the petitioner sought for eviction under Section 21 (1) (p) on the ground that the respondent has purchased site in Sy. Nos. 41 and 42 at Lingarajapuram measuring 60 feet x 40 feet and in fact he has put up building which is suitable for running the engineering works and since that accommodation is available, the petitioners are entitled to seek eviction under Section 21 (1) (p) of the Act.

( 5 ) THE respondent is a proprietary concern and the Proprietor being one S. Suresh, RW 1. His father Siddalingaiah had taken the premises on lease at the first instance in the year 1970 and it is stated, after his death, Suresh is continuing the said establishment. The respondent has opposed the appli

Click Here to Read the rest of this document