Chandrakantaraj Urs, J.
1. This is a tenant's Revision Petition under Section 115 of C.P.C. The Respondent, who is the landlord, moved the Munsiff at Dharwar for eviction of the tenant from thePetition premises on the ground that it was required for him for his bona fide use and occupation. The tenant is in occupation of two rooms forming a tenant in a composite house where another tenant is also living. The Respondent/landlord has purchased the premises from the previous owner. The tenant resisted the prayer in the petition before the Munsiff on the ground that the requirement was not genuine ; that the petitioner was working at Bangalore and therefore he would not be requiring the residence of his own.
2. On the evidence led, the Munsiff held in favour of the tenant. Against that the landlord preferred a RevisionPetition before the District Judge, Dharwar. In the course of the proceedings before the District Judge, he also produced additional documents such as the order of transfer made posting him to Dharwar and also a certified copy of the petition filed by him to evict the other tenant who has occupied the other portion of the petition premises. The Learned District Judge taking note these subsequentdevelopments, reversed the findings of the Munsiff and directed eviction. Therefore the present Revision Petition in this Court by the tenant against the order of the District Judge.
3. Mr. Upadhyaya, Learned Counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that petitioner had no opportunitybefore the District Judge to lead further evidence on the new material placed before the Revisional Court. However, he admits that the application for receiving additional evidence was served on him and he had the opportunity of filing objections to it and the same been so filed. But, he is not able to state whether in the objections filed he had asked for permission of the Court to lead additional evidence from his side. If he did not ask and was not given, he cannot now make a grievance of it saying that he was not given an opportunity.
4. Proceeding under the Karnataka Rent Control Act before any of the forums is summary in character. Parties are required to be ready with theirwitnesses, if any, on every date of hearing. If opportunity given is not utilised, then it cannot be said that the District Judge has committed any error or acted with material irregularity.
5. It is also contended that the Revisional Court should not receive additional evidence. I do not think that is the correct view. It is now well established that even at the stage of proceedings before the High Court in such matters as eviction under the special enactment new events can be brought to the notice of the Court and the Court must take notice of the subsequent events which will help the Court to decide the matter one way or the other. ( Variety Emporium v. V.R.M. Mohd. Ibrahim Naina) 1 therefore do not see any error of jurisdiction in the order under revision in this Court.
6. In the result, there is no merit in this Petition and it is dismissed accordingly.
7. By consent of the Counsel for the Respondent/land-lord, time is extended by twocalendar months from today for the tenant to vacate the petition premises and deliver vacant possession to the landlord subject to payment of arrears of rent and the current rents without default. If arrears of rent and current rent are not paid, the order of the District Judge will be executable forthwith.