Chandrakantaraj Urs, J.
1.These are landlord's Revision Petitions under Section 115 C.P.C. In these three Revision Petitions he has assailed the common order passed by the District Judge, Belgaum, in H.R.C.R.P. 32,33 and 34 of 1982 on his file. TheRespondents in these Petitions are the tenants. The premises in question are non-residential premises of small dimensions fetching a rent in the range of Rs. 16/- to Rs. 17/- or less. In the year 1975 he presented a Petition for eviction of the tenants, not only the present Respondents but also some others who occupied the adjoining shops situated onNational Highway No. 4 at Nippani town. Four months before the filing of the Petitions he had issued notice to the Respondents calling upon them to vacate the premises as he intended to demolish the premises in question and put up a new construction. Some 4 years prior to the filing of the Petition he had obtained Municipal licence for suchconstruction. He also urged the ground that the tenants had not paid the rents despite written notice served on them. These two grounds fall under clauses (a) and (j) of Sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The Learned Munsiff before whom the eviction Petitions were fileddismissed the ground urged in regard to non-payment of arrears of rent but allowed the Petitions on the ground of clause (j) of sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Act, that is,for bonafide requirement of the landlord for immediate purpose of demolition and reconstruction. Aggrieved tenants preferred revisions before the District Judge. The Learned District Judge, after appreciating the evidence adduced before the Munsiff and also appreciating the arguments advanced, came to the conclusion that there is totalmisdirection by the Munsiff in examining the scope of the ground under clause (j) of sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Act and therefore, his order was liable to be interfered with and set aside. In the result, he allowed the Revision Petitions and dismissed the eviction Petitions. It is against that common order that the present Revision Petitions are preferred.
2. Mr. Balakrishna Sastry, appearing for the petitioners-landlord contended that the District Judge was the one who resorted to erroneous reasoning and not the Munsiff, that the landlord had not established his bona fide requirement for demolition and reconstruction and the evidence produced by him ought to have been accepted.
3. It came out in the oral evidence of the landlord that some of the other tenants had been evicted earlier and while he had obtained possession of one shop premises, the other two tenants had approached this Court and obtained stay of the further proceedings and therefore, he could not proceed with the construction. In that circumstance, it is contended by Mr. Sastry, that the District Judge erred in coming to the conclusion that the conduct of not re-constructing after demolition in the vacant premises went to prove the lack of bonafides.
4. 1 do not think Mr. Sastry is right in that. Essentially the Learned District Judge has relied upon the ruling of this Court and the Supreme Court. It would be useful for me to make a reference to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Panchmal Narayana Shenoy-v.-Basttai Venkatesha Sheiaoy, AIR 1971 SC 1942. In that case, the very same provision fell forconsideration before the Supreme Court. Therein their Lord-ships of the Supreme Court held as follows :
'A landlord who seeks recovery of possession of a premises under clause (j) of proviso to Section 21(1) must satisfy the Court that he reasonably and bona fide requires the premises for the immediate purpose of demolishing it and erecting a new building in the place of the old one Whether the landlord's requirement is reasonable andbonafide has to be judged by the surrounding circumstances, which will include his means for reconstruction of the building, and other steps taken by him in that regard. So also the desire of the landlord to put the property to a more profitable use after demolition and reconstruction is also afactor that may be taken into account in favour of the landlord. It is not necessary that the landlord should go further and establish under this clause that the condition of the building is such that it requires immediate demolition. In view of the specific provision in Clause (k) with regard to the condition of the building requiring immediate demolition, Clause (j) can have no reference to that condition. : AIR1963SC499 Approved;'
5. From the above, it is clear that the scope of the Section is such that greater emphasis is laid on the bona fides of the landlord rather than on the condition of the building. I would go to the extent of saying that despite the condition of the building being good, it can still be demolished and reconstructed if there is sufficient means, bona fide intention of the landlord for the same and it is profitable for the landlord. On the facts of this case, it has been established that the landlord did not prove that he obtained theMunicipal sanction. Learned District Judge has pointed out reference to that effect that he had Municipal sanction by merely asking the Municipality. Even after sanction he has not produced plans according to which demolition and reconstruction would take place. The landlord also did not produce evidence before the Court as to the delay in approaching the Court for eviction of tenants though the plan had been sanctioned four years before. Inother words, he had shown total indifference to his object of immediate demolition and reconstruction in order to improve the value of the estate. It is difficult to come to any other conclusion on those set of facts. Therefore, I am in agreement with the conclusion of the District Judge that the Munsiff hadmisdirected himself in accepting the bona fides of the landlord.
6. In this view of the matter, it is not a case in which this Court could possibly interfere under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. The Revision petitions are, therefore, dismissed.