1. These two revisions under Section 50 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), are directed against the judgment of the Additional District Judge, Bijapur, partly allowing the petition of the landlord under Section 21 provisos (h) and (i) of the Act and directing the eviction of the tenant from the first floor of the schedule premises bearing CTS Nos. 1522 to 1525 in Ward No. II of Bijapur City.
2. One Ramakant Mallappa Desai owns the schedule premises and filed his application before the II Additional Munsiff, Bijapur (H. R. C, No. 19 of 1967), for vacation of the premises by his tenant Basalingappa Mugbasappa Pattanshetti, under Section 21 (a) (h) and (i) of the Act, and the pleas were; (1) that the tenant failed to pay the rent; (2) that the premises were bona fide and reasonably required for occupation by the landlord; and (3) that the premises needed major repairs and unless the same were vacated, the repair work could not be carried out. The landlord applicant produced his at torney, PW 2, and one Assistant Engineer, PW 1, who came to state about the condition of the building. Besides these two witnesses, PWs. 3 and 4 were also produced. These witnesses came to state that some other premises had fallen vacant at Bijapur and the tenant could as well occupy them; and that he would not suffer any greater hardship if he is asked to vacate the disputed premises.
3. As against this evidence, the tenant PW 1 gave his own statement and denied that any repairs were needed in the premises, or that the landlord at all needed the same for his bona fide and reasonable requirement or that the tenant failed to pay the rent.
4. The learned II Additional Munsiff dismissed the application of the landlord. Thereafter, the landlord came in appeal before the learned Addl. District Judge and he partly succeeded, inasmuch as, the pleas under the provisos (h) and (i) prevailed before him. It was held that the first floor of the disputed premises was bona fide and reasonably required by the landlord for his occupation and that the said first floor was highly dilapidated and needed major repairs, which could not be undertaken without the premises being got vacated from the tenant. With that finding, the application of the landlord was allowed for the first floor of the disputed premises. Against that order of the learned District Judge, two revisions are filed in this Court, one by the landlord in respect of the ground floor of the disputed premises. The other revision is filed by the tenant challenging the findings of the learned appellate Judge in respect of the first floor of the disputed premises.
5. Since a common question of law and fact arises, these two revisions can be disposed of by a single judgment.
6. As evident under Section 50 of the Act, this Court would be concerned with the legality or correctness of the order made by the first appellate Judge. From this it cannot beinferred that this Court would convert itself into a Court of second appeal, but would rather confine its attention to the legality or correct-ness of the order made. If upon the evidence adduced, the first appellate Judge could arrive at a reasonable inference in favour of the land- lord or the tenant, that would be the end of the matter. It may not be correct to argue, that the evidence. considered sufficient by the appellate Judge should be considered insufficient by this Court, as long as something definite could be concluded in favour of either party on the basis of that, evidence. Therefore, the High Court being a revising Court against the order of the learned appellate Judge would only interfere if some more compelling reasons are pointed out to hold that the order made by the Judge was perverse, or illegal, or resulted in miscarriage of justice.
7. I have heard the learned counsel representing the landlord as well as the tenant in the two revisions. I have also gone through the statements of PWs. 1 and 2. The first witness is the Assistant Engineer and he candidly pointed out that the first floor required major repairs, and that the said repairs could not be undertaken without that floor being got vacated from the tenant. As regards the ground floor, he stated that the tenant need not vacate the ground floor for the repair work to be done in the first floor. With that statement of the Assistant Engineer, it was futile on the part of PW 2 to state on behalf of the landlord that the ground floor required similar repair work, or, DW 1 the tenant, to state that neither of the two floors required a repair work. Therefore, the findings of the first appellate Judge that the first floor should be got vacated, because it needed major repairs which cannot be undertaken without the tenant having vacated that floor, seems to be unassailable.
8. On the question of bona fide and reasonable requirement of the landlord, similarly the learned appellate Judge considered the statements of PW 2 and DW 1. These were the only two important witnesses, and an assessment of theirevidence clearly pointed out that the landlord needed the first floor for his bona fide and reasonable requirement.
9. The main argument of the learned counsel for the tenant was that the landlord visited Bijapur for some temporary work. Thereafter, he left for Jainapur, a place where he resides with his wife and children. The learned counsel argued that for his temporary stay at Bijapur, perhaps the two rooms already in occupation, should be considered sufficient. But for that, the answer is given by the learned first appellate Judge. Considering the requirement of the landlord, coupled with his status and his day-to-day need while he visits Bijapur, according to the first appellate Judge, the first floor is a dire necessity for him. In that connection, PW 2 has stated that there is no other residential property belonging to the landlord at Bijapur and that he will be put to a greater hardship in case he is deprived of the first floor and is made to stay in only two rooms. It has also come in evidence that the landlord engages some other house for his stay at Bijapur. DW 1 also admitted that there is no other residential premises in the name of the landlord at Bijapur. It was then pointed out by the learned counsel that the parents of the landlord reside in some adjoining house, meaning thereby that the landlord can as well go and reside with them. But that would be some thing too far to expect from tile landlord, because he may prefer to stay in a separate house for his own business while staying at Bijapur. That apart, the convenience of the landlord is also a factor to be considered. The two courts below have considered the statements of those vitnesses. They could certainly arrive to a certain definite inference which they have drawn in favour of the landlord. The statements of PWs. 3 and 4 could not be availed of, because that part of the evidence related to the greater hardship which the tenant was not likely to suffer, in case he is asked to vacate the first floor of the disputed premises. It was also stated that, perhaps, on the date the application was filed, no issues were born to the landlord and the learned counsel contended that the need of his son or daughter would not be considered his need, at any rate, on the date of the application. That may be so. But, at present, there is already a family of the landlord consisting of his wife and two children. It is undisputed that the occupation of the landlord, includes the occupation by his family members, especially when they are minors and naturally reside with him. Considering all these facts and circumstances, in my opinion, the first appellate Judge has arrived at a correct conclusion and no interference can be made in these two revisions.
10. The two revision petitions are therefore without any merit and the same are dismissed. This judgment is being given in C. R. P. No. 1967 of 1974 and shall govern the decision in C. R. P. No. 2415 of 1974. A copy of the judgment shall be kept on the record of that case.
11. Revision petitions dismissed.