The main legal point established in the judgment is the restricted nature of the remand order and the prohibition on examining other questions beyond the scope of the remand.

( 1 ) ON 20-3-1971 the petitioner filed an application under S. 21 (1) (h) of the Karnataka Rent control Act 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1961 Act') in the Court of the Munsiff, davanagere, for eviction of respondent No. 3 (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent') who is admittedly in occupation of premises bearing Door No. 591/1 situated in Davanagere City more fully described in the Schedule annexed to the petition, which was resisted by the respondent. In his application, the petitioner principally pleaded that the premises were required to run the business concern of 'kirwadi Veerabhadrappa and Sons' and 'kirwadi Anjanappa and Sons' and later amended as 'kirwadi Anjanappa and Brothers'. In the objections statement filed, the respondent denied the plea of bona fide requirement of the premises pleaded by the petitioner and did not raise any objection as to the maintainability of the application filed by the petitioner. On a consideration of the evidence placed by the parties, the learned Munsiff, by his order dated 10-11-1971, rejected the application of the petitioner inter alia holding that the petitioner could use the upstairs portion of the petition schedule premises and therefore there was no justification to allow the application filed by the petitioner for eviction of the respondent. On an appeal filed by the petitioner, the learned District Judge, by his order dated 12-10-1973, affirmed the order of the learned Munsiff which was challenged by him before this Court in Civil Revn, Petn. No. 621 of 1974. In the said Civil Revision Petition, the petitioner contended that the ground or finding on which the Courts below had refused his claim for eviction of the respondent viz; that the upstairs 1st floor was suitable for his occupation had been arrived at without affording him an opportunity to establish whether it was suitable or unsuitable for his occupation and therefore the same was vitiated. Accepting the said plea of the petitioner Nesargi J; by his order dated 5-12-1974 (Exhibit A), set aside the orders of the Courts below and remitted the case to the learned Munsiff only to ascertain the suitability or unsuitability of the area available in the 1st floor of the petition schedule premises. As the principal contention of the petitioner depends on the terms of the remand order passed by Nesargi J; it is useful to set out the material portions of that order.

". . . Such an opportunity has to be, in the interest of justice provided, because, unless the premises is found to be suitable or unsuitable, no conclusion can be drawn merely on the basis of that much of area being available to the petitioner-landlord. The conclusion of the two Courts below that because that much an area is available and that area is equal to the area of the schedule premises therefore, the claim of the petitioner-landlord is not reasonable and bona fide, cannot be sustained. Such a conclusion can be sustained only if it had been further found that the area in the first floor of the schedule premises is suitable to the petitioner-landlord to run his business. In that view of the matter, the orders of the two Courts below cannot be sustained. . . "

". . . . I allow C. R. P. No. 621 of 1974 set aside the order in question and direct the records be remitted to the Court of the Munsiff, Davanagere, for disposal of H. R. C. Application No. 17/1971 afresh according to law after giving opportunity to both the sides to adduce evidence only in regard to suitability of the area available in the first floor of the schedule premises to run the business of the petitioner-landlord. No order as to costs. Sd/- M. S. Nesargi. Judge. "

( 2 ) IN my considered opinion, a faithful compliance to the remand order of this court required the learned Munsiff to ascertain only the suitability or unsuitability of the area available in the first floor of the schedule premises and if he found that that area was unsuitable, he should have allowed the application of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document