Chandrakantaraj Urs, J.
1. This is a tenant's revision Petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He has suffered an order of eviction by the Munsiff, Mangalore, in H.R.C. No. 210 of 1977. Eviction was sought by the respondents in these proceedings on the ground that the tenant was in arrears of rent and despite a written demand served on him, he failed to pay the same within two months and further that the premises in the occupation of the tenant was required for the bona fide use and occupation of the respondents or atleast two of them.
2. Tenant resisted the Petition and had alleged that it was motivated by some ill-will the landlords had towards him on account of non-co-operation with the landlords evading to pay the income tax. That he had tendered the rent for November 1976 by Money Order which was rejected and therefore he did not further tender the amount despite receipt of notice in February 1977. He also stated that the requirement of one of the sons-in-law of the 1st petitioner would not constitute the requirement of his family.
3. On the evidence lead in support of the pleadings, which I have stated in the barest minimum, the Courts below came to the conclusion that the bona fide requirement was established on the evidence lead for the land-lords. What is required to be noticed in this regard is not question of whether one or more members of the family require the additional portion of the premises in the occupation of the tenant. But whether the premises which was available for occupation of the landlords was insufficient for their own occupation. The Learned District Judge on revision confirmed the findings of the Munsiff in regard to both the grounds that there was wilfull default or there was no sufficient cause shown by the tenant for non-payment of rents after written demand was made.
4. Mr. Hande, Counsel for the petitioner in this Court has made strenuous attempts to convince this Court that there was no adequate evidence and if it was, the evidence proved the case of the tenant and the falsity or the mala fide intention of the landlords in securing the eviction and not their genuine requirement. I do not think, this Court sitting under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, should re-appraise the evidence on record and even if it was possible to come to a different conclusion than the Courts below, should so come to such conclusion. The jurisdiction is limited to examining the correctness, legality or interfere where there is some error of jurisdiction and not otherwise. Some times the evidence interpreted in a particular way will be very attractive to hold in favour of those who move the Higher Court. But that is no reason why the revisional jurisdiction should get enlarged.
5. It was next contended that on the ground of nonpayment of arrears of rent, there was clear legal error having regard to the ruling of this Court in Gulam Rasul Manrulwala -v.- Susheelamma, 1983 (1) KLJ 4. The argument was that the tenant had sufficient cause which the Court below had not bothered to discuss adequately. In other words the crux of the argument is that benefit of Clause 2 of Sub-section 2 of Section 21 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, had not been extended to the tenant. If it was so, certainly it will call for interference. Admittedly, it was the rent of November 1976 that was sent by money order and which was refused by the landlords. There was no dispute about that. But the fact is that the notice was issued in February 1977 demanding the arrears of rent and it was received by the tenant on 19-2-1977, which he had to explain to invite the Court to consider the sufficient cause for not paying the rent for the period subsequent to the receipt of notice and not what he did before issue of notice. No explanation whatsoever had been given for his conduct after the receipt of the notice. His conduct whether good or bad before receipt of notice is immaterial in considering the case failing under Clause (a) to proviso 1 of Section 21 of the Act. Clause (a) is such that the rent shall be paid after demand in writing is served within two months. It is that failure on the part of the tenant about which, he should show sufficient cause. If that was not explained, question of relying upon any observation made by this Court in Gulam Rasul's case, 1983 (1) KLJ 4 in regard to the equitable consideration and the liberality of construction of the sufficient cause, will not be available to the tenant.
6. For reasons stated above, there is no merit in the revision petition ; the same is rejected.