Chandrakaujtaraj Urs, J.
1. This is a tenant's Revision Petition against the order of the Second Additional District Judge, Dharwar.
2. In H.R.C. Case No. 83/1982 the Landlord of the Petition premises sought for eviction on the ground that the tenant-Co-operative Society has not paid the rents inspite of a written notice of demand in that behalf having been served on the Society and that the Petition premises was required by the Landlord for his bonafide use and occupation; that the Municipality has issued notices that the building must be demolished and reconstructed or effective repairs to be made so that it would not be a danger to theinhabitants.
3. The Munsiff on appreciating the evidence came to hold that the landlord had not made out a case and therefore dismissed the eviction Petition. Aggrieved by the same the landlord approached the District Judge under Sub-section 2 of Section 50 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, for the relief inter alia contending that the Learned Munsiff had erred in going behind the notice of the Municipality and coming to a conclusion different from that of the Municipality and also that the Munsiff had erred in coming to the conclusion that the cause shown by the society fornon-payment of the rent within 2 months from the service of the notice constituted sufficient cause within the meaning of the expression occurring in Clause (2) of sub Section 2 of Section 21 of the K.R.C. Act. In the result having regard to the rulings of this Court District Judge allowed the eviction Petition setting aside the order of the Munsiff. The District Judge has given cogent reasoning as to why the Court should not go behind the conclusion reached by the Municipality in regard to the dangerous condition of the building. I think the view taken by him is correct. The relevant Clause (k) of the proviso to sub section 1 of Section 21 of the Act clearly provides that the landlord can seek eviction if a local authority has directed demolition of the building. In the instant case that the local authority acted so is not in dispute. Once that is established by production of the notice that Court cannot go behind that notice, and come to a different conclusion that the building does not require demolition. To uphold such reasoning by Courts would be to create a needless friction between the local authority concerned and the Court and the purpose of the legislation will be totally defeated.
4. The learned Judge is also right in coming to the conclusion that mere fact that the society was threatened with liquidation proceedings under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act was not a justifiable reason which would constitute sufficient cause within the meaning of that expression in Clause (ii) of sub section 2 of the proviso to Section 21 of the Act. Mere threat of liquidation proceedings does not clothe the society with the power to hold back the rent lawfully due to landlord.
5. I therefore do not see any merit in this despite the strenuous arguments of the Learned Counsel for the tenant/ petitioner.
Petition is therefore rejected.