Chandrakantaraj Urs, J.
1. This is sub-tenant's revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and is directed against the order of the District Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore, dated 17-12-1984 made in C.R.P. No. 164 of 1983 on his file. That matter arose before the District Judge on account of the order made by the Munsiff in H.RC. No. 68 of 1979 on the file of the II Additional Munsiff, Mangalore. That eviction proceeding was initiated in that Court at the instance of Respondents 1 and 2 herein, the landlords who were the purchasers of the Petition premises. They sued for eviction of the tenant and the sub-tenant on the ground that the premises were required for bona fide use and occupation ; that the tenant had not paid the arrears of rent despite a written demand and that the tenant had committed breach by sub-leasing the premises in question without the consent of the landlords. The Munsiff found in favour of the landlords and allowed the Petition. That is why the revision before the District Judge. The Learned District Judge has affirmed the order of the Munsiff.
2. In this Court, four points have been urged. The first one is that all the rents were paid by the sub-tenant as soon as he came to know of it and therefore there could not be any cause of action available, to the landlords to evict him on the ground available under Clause (a) of proviso to Subsection (1) of Section 21 of the Act. The second point urged is that the landlords had in or about the year 1976 demolished a building of their own elsewhere in the City of Mangalore and that would go to prove that they did not require any premises for their own use and occupation much less the premises in question. The third point urged is that in considering the comparative hardship the Courts below did not consider the comparative hardship caused to the sub-tenant and therefore there was a clear violation of the provisions contained in Sub-section (4) of Section 21 of the Act. The fourth point urged is that there was no contravention of any of the provisions of the lease originally granted to the main tenant because the rent note executed at that time in 1953 provided for the tenant sub-leasing if he so desired.
3. I do not think there is force in any of the contentions urged. That the landlords demolished a building in the year 1976 or as contended by the landlords in the year 1966 would not be of much assistance to resist the claim for bona fide use and occupation which is a need that has arisen after the demolition. A owner of more than one property is free to deal with any of his properties in the manner he chooses as long as the object of such use is not prohibited by law. Therefore, mere act of demolition of one of his properties would not be a defence available to a later tenant in another premises unless there is direct evidence that the demolition was caused only to seek this particular premises. There is no such evidence in this case.
4. That there was no arrears as the sub-tenant had paid up all the arrears as soon as he came to know of the same is not a defence. The law does not contemplate any action by the sub-tenant whether legally inducted or otherwise. It is the tenant that is the one who has sub-teased who has to meet his obligation under Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Act. It is on him the onus is cast to ender or pay the rents lawfully due to the landlord. If he Failed to do that, a sub-tenant cannot interpose himself and offer to discharge the obligation beyond the time specified in the Statute. In such cases, the sub-tenant has no locus standi to question that ground.
5. The third contention that comparative hardship of the sub-tenant was not considered by the Court below in regard to Sub-section (4) of Section 21 of the Act must also be rejected because the sub-tenant cannot exist independently of the tenancy. If the tenancy goes by virtue of the conduct of the tenant, the sub-tenant must necessarily suffer all hardship even if he has those and they need not be taken into account by the Court evicting the tenant.
6. Similarly, the last contention that the Madras Act which was applicable in that area prior to the coming into force of this Act had provided for sub lease being created or the rent note itself provided creation of sub-lease is not of assistance on the facts of this case because eviction has been ordered not only on that ground but also on the other grounds. Merit of that ground does not call for examination.
7. In the result, the petition is rejected. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has prayed for extension of time. I find it extremely difficult to grant that extension because the tenant is not before this Court and he has not preferred any revision against the order of the District Judge. In that event, sub-tenant's request for grant of further time cannot be granted.