a. IN TIL HIGH uAIRT OF KARX.Plt(A AT BthJALuRE DaTED THE 25T11 DIX OF MAY 1998 BF i1i; THE RON’ 8L2 MR.JUSTIE H.dA.GaTTTk.tIaU a d,R.P, No. 989 19 93 Smt, Ammayamma, w/o late Puttappa, 62 years, No,63, Ir (sr)S5, New Gtjddadahalli Mysore ibad, Bana1oy..26, Petit I ier (By ri S,P,Shankar) —vs Ramajab since deceased by L,s, a) Puttananjamma, w/o Ramafah, major, b) Manju, s/o Ramaiah, maj or, Both are i/n No.60, IT 0 ross, New Guddadahalli, Mysore Road, Bangalore—26, Respondents (By ri G,B,Raju) Pt s r vial )r titi n s fi ii 6cr aettnn aO i) f tte Kay talc Rent C nt 01 A t agairst the r er lated 17,6 1Q93 oft sed r 11th ‘. .1036/90 ti ft • of tI XIX ddtti nal a 1 In cc J ige Barealore, This revision [Ct it ion coming n for hearing this day, the curt made the following: jgrieved by the order disrtds sing the evicti sri petition the landlady has preferred this petition under Section 50 of the Karnataka Rent Control. t, Petitioner had filed an eviction tition against the respondent herein in respect of a room abutting her residence on the gromd that she is a widow, unfortunately her two c3aqhters are also widows having children, hence they also have to be accommated along with her, The presert pret.ses in her occupation cisists of one room, kitchen and bathroom which is ‘atholly inadequate for their residence, The pettion schedule premises is highly suitable and therefore the same is required reasably and bonafide for her own use and occupation, This petition was resisted by the tenant-respondent contending that the requirement is neither reasaable nor honafide, the basis of these pleadings the p rties went t trial and adduced evideoce, The learned Jue of the ili sec in appciation of the evidence rejected the pition solely on the ground that d un ng the pende nay of t he cvi ct ion p it ion one oom fell vacant rd ins cad of occupying the same the landlady had leased it out to a third party w Ic rt Ic rly takes way t e bonafides gnieved by the said order this revision pition is filed. Sri S,P,Shankar, learned comsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that tne learned Jide has fallen into an error of record in omitting to consider that what had faUen vacant was an auto shed situate opposite to the residence of the petitioner ard. the petitioner being a widc, with her two wided danghters cann occupy the said premises, The Learned Ji.dge according to him hawing dbelieved the case of the petitioner that the accommodation at preserL in her occupation has oiily one room a the number of persons to be accornodated is aoout 5 should have held that the scheduled premises wojon abuts he petition schedule premises is more suitable for their additional accorrtnc.ation, therefore submitted that the order is liable to be set aside, Per on a Sri 0 B,Raju, earned ounce appearing r the spondent ibmittea hat e findings of the learned tnsiff that in the absence of the petitioner shing any reason for his non occupation of a room which fell vacant, the learned Jx. was ifie reje n th pa tin I have one th h the der of e lear A Judge of li The learned Jndga as rightly contended by the pit loner has n dis—believed the case of the pitioner that there are large number of persons to be accomnndated in a small single bed room prernises. All that the learned Jge finds fault is petitioner has failed to occupy one of the roons that fell vacant during the pendency of the pition, It has to be stated that admittedly the room that fell vacant wan situated in the opposite side of the schedule premises, The faitly of the petitioner are all widowed female L rrnibers without any male assistance which oam be said by any stretch of imagination that a autot shed falling ,acant in the opposite side can be held to be suitable or caivenient and nonoccupatiori of wuch a premises would cake a’.ay the bonaf ides, If the petitioner had leased out any premises adjacent to the schedule premises that nay be a g ound t consider the bon fides of the petitioner, That is not the case here, Therefe t on can oninq f the ear’ ed 7ige annot on phe I have already observed that the evidence on record dislos t at he petitin h s la qe amily admittedly in occupation of a single bed room tenament a d nich a arnily spirir for re acxo a ion cannot be held to be either as unreasonable or ri 1sf ide Ther for j ha t be he d St th petitioner reai4rns the premises reasonably and bonafide •eD* o3 TOO! !1 I Tfl pszeZ ST ai eSsj#d •*T eLLZS3TS $q.s S tUTUWo iT aq iees pa e ST UeU, fJ1$ eq; 3ag S W Spi UOTsSJaqt 5tJ LE sos ouw s uT*eq sope ST uwue TSU72o SL!1 ?C) Teat eq st oe; Si4 0; pesx 8PT85 S T pSuiea 5L4 jo Spio eqj, flE ST sq; ‘S*oqs pG;e;s suossax sq; ‘esso STLr3 UT StqTssa U ST U0TT*S Tstzsd T181OODe TUOT TPP 10 PSXTflba sTsasTwaad 4 anpeqos a q; ;eq; ios; aq; a; peei UT*i uapuodsa$ aq; ustç dTMSPStI 18ea3 ie;;s uoT;Td eq; saazsq Tmed e*T ua;T us aoas usa £1TDT;TTv ieueuapuadsei sq; seeiaqs o a; TT ° WOOS T1T UT a; zaUoT;Ted eq wowe £TTeTA ptrtole ;T e1ei ST X5530 U0TTA8 ;T PU8DLO ST dTSPXs11 e*j;sxwoa ;o sojsb aq; se .m as z soT;ed0000 pis ass tieo aq 30