IN TEE HIGH COURT OF KMZNATA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS filE 17TH DAY OF ALGtJST 1998 BEFORE THE EON’ BLE MR • JUSTI CE I. V. RAVEENDRAN 178 1998 Dinesh Bobra, major, No,A—24, Jayanthi Apartments 13th cross, hl1eswaram, Bangalore. •. Petitioner By Sri H.fL Anantbakrisina Murth Adv,) AND Nareeb Guptba, majors r/o No.15, I floor, Srikantan layout, Crescent Road Cross, Bangalore. . Respondent (p Sri,Anant hndagi Adv. This petition is filed against the order dt.25—6—98 passed in EEC No.2329/94 onêie file of Z Addl.Siuall Causes, Judge, Bangalore allowing We petition tiled u s 21(1)(b) & (p of EEC Act This pition coming on for admission this day be Cour de tb following —4 —- ORDER This is a tenant’s petition under Section 50(1) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (‘Act’ for short). 2, The respondent-landlord filed an eviction petition under provisos (ii) & (p) to Section 21(1) of the Act in WIG No.2329/94 in regard to a residential jremises, the rent of which is I.2,5O0/ per month, ‘the petition has been allowed both under provisos (h) & (p) to Section 21(1) of the Act, It is seen aat the trial Court has considered the matter in detail and has given a finding that need of the landlord is bonafide and reasonable and greater hardship would be caused to the landlord if an order of eviction is not made, that be partial iction is not feasible, The Can’t has also given a finding that the tenantts wife has acquired a suitable alternative jremises Learned counsel ‘ * 3 S —3— for the tstitioner strenuously argued that the tenantes wife acquiring a property is not a ground for eviction under proviso (p) to Section 21(1) of the Act, Be that as it way, &1e”’ F iki peIW.r4n -frc.a4 k ,wF 4b& & be k• c.n4t p*vc, (p) the petitioner is liable to be evicted under proviso (h) to Section 2 i(s) of the Act, bt this stage. learned counsel for the petitioner stated that if b time is given to the tenant upto the end of February 2000 to vacate the premises. he will not press this petition and will file the usual affidavit. 3, Learned counsel for the landlord opposed grant of time on the ground that petitioner has suitable alternative accowmodation. Rowever to put an end to the litigation and to have a finality in the matter. he agreed to grant time to the tenant to vacate the premises upto the end of /February 2000, , . 4. . w W W — 4, in view of the above, the petition is dismissed as not pressed granting time to the tenant to vacate the premises till the end of the month of February 2000, subject to the petitionertenant filing an affidavit within one month from this date undertaking follows: (a) to voluntarily vacate and deliver up vacant possession of the petition schedule premises to the landlord on or before the end of the month of February 2000; (b) to pay the rents regularly; and (c) not to induct a nyone else into the premises. 5, If the petitioner—tenant falls to file sLvh affidavit wt bin one month from this date ox connits breath of any of the undertakirs referred to above, the landlord will be entitled to execute ‘e o dcx evicti n eve though time granted by this order has not expired. UDGE Sp/u j