1%) I ci, P AJsL P %W1* U, rflI b4-a .b 9 P1 0 (tifl k% 0 00 en 0 09 a 1? LhI 12 D 01 A003 U ‘1 :1 1 I &oh9 44 (tIe.) 0 0 SI 01 II £ I.. 40:) 1 sLoPJ bIWtt a a 3bJ w r• 0 C (1 0 ‘iii I ‘Q 4* II’ C) (S ( 0 • i-I .• I ‘1! I I I I s)c ‘.0 (14*91 0* 0 (.j34 oW C IA 6 .. 8’ (a Is In 0 • I,’. ,•1. . ‘p. JUL ti ‘ (1’ 014 *4 14 o kim .4 0 0 Pt 80 Is • $ a. 1? (3 (at .5 Ui) C a? ‘I 111* ml I I I I LI S.flu S Li 5 ‘3 I ‘1 w “ U La: ) 4I (S. H 4 •41 13 ‘3 (I) a C ‘p V I I) 4, ‘a ci, Pa t L •14 Is ‘4, I) dl t II I .4 pa ‘C —3— This filed u/s. 115 of CPC against the order dt. 21.12.93 nassed in H4 C.RP 7/88 on the file of the 2ist. Judge, Karwar allowing the revision petition anc confirminç. the order dt .8i88 passed in P 23/80 on the file of the Punjff, This / 4 pp is coning on for hearing this day, the Court made the foilowinq: e4e .‘: Resnonrlent herein had filed an eviction petition against tie petitioner in respect of a req 4 dential nyp4qg situate in Kartr on the ar tml that tha sam is required for atendina his gild smithy busIness this pet it ion wag resisted by ft. tenant. the qartles ‘sent t. tr and led evcbnce bet ‘re the learned ansiff. the leirned unsiff n annreciatjnn I the nvdence dismissed the evicti’n netition h lding that the etitlon Has bonafides, ir loved b:: the s tid order the landlord ?referred ‘a rent revisi n bet r, te learned Ditr 1 ct huge. Tue Learned Utstrtct Juege )n roa,:’reciatirn 4 the eviderc.e set ‘aside tie rer f t e leirne4 unsiff ani cnsequertly r’ored ev!c. ii. The tenarts have clallerife. this irder nder aecti n 115 fl the Cde ‘1 Civil PrceCre. an £rtshnaazrt’q flssngar learned counsel Pnqarfnq I r the “etit oners—tenants canterdecj that tie in mach f tne le’mned Distr’ct Judge in all”vinq the rvs1rn net 1tin 4g contrary to the principles s-f las laid dmn lsy the 3u rae ‘wirt in the decisi-’n in L::. g 1 s1:4 Qc,. a4 Ld... 3.1 swia.h ( dl 1991 aC 1113). lcc)rdinU t) him ever’ thrngh .4... the pleadings are silent renrdinu the ,articulars required for nr ‘vim the cise, the learned aJistrict Judge bev”nd the scone nf pleadings h4d decided the case. Tie als. submitted that during the pendency of the evi&icn petitin resnnmident— lmi]l rd ci into nosessi”n of tw ‘flier uremises the ion—occupation of which takes away bonafides. The learned z.cunsea also submitted that the learned Judue has n’tt nrvrnerly apreciated the evience in the orner orspective f ir assessing the comparative hardship of the parties . Listly be suitted that b th the caurts nave n4 applied their mind about the feasibility of ?artial evIction. kcent th lest c ntenti n there is U) mer it in the *her c rntenti ons I h v °one tirough tIme rec’rds and the r’er of tarn learned nnsif I and the learned 91 trct Tulge. The I ndlord—petitl’ner has c early stated in hs pntiti n that n is ninufacturing gold jeivellary itens un’er licence issued by the tustats and “entril xei’e epartinent. lie has been earning on the s Id business in a small space aeasnrtng Sg’ x 7’ in premises \o.1635 qbout 3 £.s. asay Iron Karwar T w’n He aims emnloyed 20 arirkers on 4aIly w1e bftsis• It has bectue “ifficult fnr him ti extern’ the business in the said reaises ftRv —6— Pher efore he requires the schedule nrnises for his own use and occupation During enquiry he examined himself as PW, I and has clearly stated that adjacent to the schedule premises he is now residing with hi.s family ii.embers consisting of himself, his wife and two children. esides one of his sister studying in P.tJ,C. is in occupation of the unstafr rjyotio, lie had filed similar eviction pet ition against two other tenants for the same urpose es in this petition and has obtained eviction That at present he has been carrying on the business abunt 3 Kms. away from Karwar is not disputed nor the facts stated by him referred to above have been seriously challenged by the tenants, Under the circumstances i.t cannot be said that aspiring to shift and extend his business in a place that belongs to him is either unreasonable or ladcs bonafides. Therefore the finding of the learned Distr ict Judge on this asoect canuct be Ian Itod. In o far as the availability the adjacent two small tenaments is concerned the tenant himself has su gested in cross—examination that the said premises is very small one vailabi1ity of such a snail niece will not meet the requirement of the landlord who has got 20 workers to carry on the business. Therefore it cannot be said that ‘-7- the learned Tudge has cnraitted any error calling fr interference. )uasia’s case relied upon by tne learned cnzn,el is n$ tpplicable to this case. That :.as a case whore admittedly the tenants a•i led ev1nce ti sh•w that tile landl rd ipart from the icaetle premises sae uore houses hich if occupied wrnld have met the need, fit in thIs case the tenant has nt come for ard with 1 y plea in )rder to ,h w the evailability of accumodati.n t tile landlord to meet his requiraent, In si far as the questi rn of comparative hardship is concerned the tenant in this caso has a hatel and the landLord is at present cirrvii rn the businngq about I aC s, aeav frw’ the place f his residence in a srall area as ,tnted ah’.ve. If eviction order is r°Nse’I virtually it ‘‘old be c inollin° tie Irdl ird f’r all times t me t carry n the jqirnss in the sail ,Jiee without asniring t- estnnd tae sue, Un4er toe of runstances the learned Di*r’ct Judqe as iutired in i lrru t it tie lan 1 ,r suffers neater nqdshin, Tn Sn fax 15 the guest I -n of f4asibilttv ,f ,srtltl evicti n is c nc,erned t e ntrties have -s not led any evidence n r tae c ut below have appliel their mind. ence eaatter has fl be recinded b ti. file f the learned hineiff to enquire about the feasibility of iartttl eviction only after rivlrp tie nrties nortunity to adhice such further evi ‘e ce as they nay choose in tiis behilf. Ft is ‘rile ci r that t* inin s I the leirned )istrict Jud’e th2t th’ reqiirent of the landl rd is reas n bi’ ani bonifale is upheld so ils the finding f tae leirn .1 Tudse tint the landlord suffers ereater hirdsntp in case eviction Is refused. Since tha mitter is pending Ix a line time the Inarned ‘aniff 1, irected to dispose fl the aatter within six mnths from the date of aeceipt if the rier. Reviein petition is part all wed. JUDGE