a S 4. 4. IN THL HIGH COURT OF KARNVFAK&s AT BANGALORE DTED T HE 21ST DY or SEPTEMBER lfl. FEFOPL THC HON ‘OLE MR .JUSTICE H .RANGAVITTALACHAR H .R .R .P .NO - 1327/1995 1 ‘mt.Ycllomma 8a w o late P Oevendrapça, 2 years. 2. Sri D.Parashuram do late P.Devendrappa 2 >cars 3. Sri D.Krishna sb late P.Davendrappa, 50 years. 4. Sri D Baeesoraj, .10 aate P.Davendrappa, 35 years. ¶1. a D.Purumeshwor 1 . a late Dcvenirapr . Jo y ore 6. 3i-i D.Ravi s/c late Devendrappa, 36 years 7. tileS Parvathi d/o lat’. Devenarappa, 27 years. i vt’. 10’, ri c, uka Nrae, B f oad Barjlor F titsonrs (By ti/s Sbahedul].a Khan) V.. t,j 3 vitl%an, r.r .Narayan, 4fl vcar:, Vijaya Stores, 5 U 2 t P 0 1 ço • -‘ ). — rs.f ( I b’ I- ‘ ) 3 I” 3 a,. . U 0 C ) C D r çt -4 f (fl ej s s • -, C r ‘0 as a. • 1% tiw a. c ‘a -i C q1 S ( ) (a. C ‘91’ 3 0’ a. — rC Sc ‘a • a ‘• 1 0 S 3 C ( (‘15 C - ‘1.30 o C - -s t C. ‘Jr t 0’ J S a.’ S — r 0’ a. r a. (a 3 0 ‘0 C- 0 C. a -, - C) • 1’ Ca (a 3 at 1-’ 0 C -t & I 3 I- ( U C C ‘(a - , ‘1 C I - I’ 0 ; 3 5 -a. 1’ C C. - • ) -s a; a. c cr t —• • ‘4 ( (‘1 -‘ — w ww_w_ —3— JR DEft Petitioners herein had filed an eviction petition against the res)ondent on tue file of the learned Jue of mal1 aoses, bangalore on the ground that all the petitioners are co—owners of the sche ule pro erty which is a sha and other nr oert i Cs situate at Nagavara :ain Road, angalore tiEt the seventh petitioner one tss arvathy, a s 1 inister who has 1 assed the age of marriage because of some disability wants to start a tailing business in the Schedule SiIOJ; he nas undergone training in tailoring; Besides there is incompatability amour the family members, tuere fore she ants to live in peate. Pius petition vas resisted by the tenant— rcsondent denying the reduirement as neither reasonb1e nor bonafide. The learned Judge of small Causes, Bangalore enuIred the eviction etition Before the learned Jue the said Parvathy fr ;hose benefit the eviction was sought exa2ined herself as P. I in u nort of her case and orod ed certain ducuments imi1arly resoon nt exanined himelf as RJ,I in sunoort of the case and produced certain docu:ents irInq the trial it apears that a 1onunissioney was ap>ointed who has nspected the the hon and has stitod about the measurenent ‘md availability of n alternative aecuili1odat ion to the • .1 F petitioner. The learned Judge in appreciltion •t the F eviörtce on reeord though did not disbelieve the case of the petItioner diemissed the eviction petition solely on the ground that subsequent to the tiling of the evictien petitien two praises tell vacant that tm 1. One shop praises in the upstairs of praises bearing No.1179 situate halt a turiong away from the petitioners premises; and 2. That the petit toner instead at occupying the adjaeent shop praises whichtefl vacant has relet it to other terant. Theretore the it any is taken away. Argrieved by the said order, this revision petition is tiled. the learned counsel appear trig for the petitioners contended that the learned Judge has not properly read the evideme on record. According to him no premises fell vacant which was available for occupation. En so tar as the upstairs shop bearing No.1179 is concerned, earlier teisnt is occupation ot it without their’eeestst has sub—leased it to a Doctor who is in occupation of the premises. So also is the case regarding the adjacent shop to the schedule shop. w.Ctv ‘V 1 5 t I I t.7,. ‘Io it C 11 ci p t I £ F a 2. c - 3 p - I t .7 C. - • 2 3 • t ) ) • 3.. 14. p • ) I p • ,.. ‘. •1 It 4. a •1. S ) (• S I -.5 .U ci 1 • 3 3 a a n Ct • 9% •1$ ci cc 3. fl ci 9 4 ci b t o 1 a I t 1. 4 ci I I ‘ 7 0. 9 •7 It - I r 4t — p t *1) ) • I £ ) I. .7 ci pa - a 7’0 S. 4. a It - p It 1 ci p 7 t I- ‘U ‘U 4. 1. ‘U S - 4. 5 V 1. cc I’ ( P 0 t % p 4. p .7 .6 I It 4 4 I S c a ‘C ct V C h :7 C S : —t — Similarly i so ar as tne availabilit/ if the adjacent shcp tc the schedule premises is conce’ ned, learned cuonsel ror the petcti;ners submitted that the original tenant had sub-leased the sane in favour of the present occupant without their consent, therefore petiticners had tc file an eviction petiticn cn bPS Nc1O56i/94 unoer Secticn 21 (1) (f) of the Karnataka Pent Control Act in respect of the said premises, which eviction petition came to be allowed by an orde cf the court dated 43A996. Srnce this is a tunsequent enn it should cisc cc taken into consideration while deciding the eviction petitior. The evidence r tHis regard s not clear as to come to one or the other conclusion. Circe tne auailabflit 7 cc a suitable s!tenative premises is a factor to be taken into :c oiderstio wit Is passing the eviotiu’ o he- , it is necessary that the parties be provided with an tu-ther cpportuncty n tnat regard, it cs aiso submitted by the tenant that apart rcm the sbo ‘e one rnore shop has now fallen vacant suitable for ocupatloi-, Therefure the matt Hat to ne remanded to the file of the learned Judge of small Causes, Csngaicrs, to enquire about the 0 4 IL C ( 4 • 0 C J g S I, %• ‘C 4 C T • 4’ •‘i C— 0 - ‘4 p — — C ‘c i 4 I. 44 lin4 S 0 I IL C 0 I’ ‘4 I. I U t - 4 I-.