ORDER
V. Gopala Gowda, J.
1. The petitioner is the landlady and respondent is the tenant. The landlady filed eviction petition under Section 21(1)(h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act seeking eviction of tenant on the ground that she requires the petition schedule premises for her bona fide use and occupation. Subsequently, eviction was also sought under Clause (p) of Section 21(1) of the Act on the ground that the tenant acquired another premises. The tenant resisted the claim of the landlady and sought for dismissal of the petition. Both the parties adduced evidence and produced the documents. Upon appreciation of the material brought on record, the Trial Court by its order dated 6-8-1999 dismissed the petition holding that the landlady did not prove her requirement and satisfactory evidence has not come on record to pass eviction order under Section 21(1)(p) of the Act. The landlady has filed this revision against the said order.
2. Smt. Rajeshwari, learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that she has produced the voters list and the telephone bills to prove that the tenant was residing in another premises bearing No. 42, 8th Cross, II Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore-11, but the Trial Court did not consider the same in a proper perspective. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent sought to justify the order under revision. He also submits that though I.A. No. 15 was filed to summon one Nagaraj to prove the case of the tenant, the same was rejected by the Trial Court on the ground that summoning of the said person is not necessary. The Counsel prays for dismissal of the revision petition.
3. Perused the order under revision. So far as the rejection of the petition under Section 21(1)(h) of the Act is concerned, no interference is warranted as there is no proper pleading and the evidence adduced in this regard is quite contradictory. The Trial Court has considered the claim of the landlady in great detail and rejected the same by recording its findings assigning valid and cogent reasons. Hence, this Court declines to go into that aspect of the matter.
4. Insofar as rejection of the petition under Section 21(1)(p) of the Act is concerned, it is found that the Trial Court has not properly considered the material placed on record. In fact, the tenant himself has admitted that he was living in the premises at Jayanagar. The explanation offered by him is that in order to treat his wife for Cancer at Kidwai Hospital, he temporarily occupied the same. But, if it was a temporary occupation, in the voters list (Ex. P. 4) the names of the tenant and his family members would not have figured. Ex. P. 1 is the card pertaining to the obsequies of deceased wife of the tenant. In that, it is stated that theobsequies would be held in 'own house' at Jayanagar. The words 'own house' are significant. From these, it is implied that the premises at Jayanagar is the own property of the tenant. But, the tenant claims that it belongs to Nagaraj who was sought to be summoned in I.A. No. 15. Even though the wife of tenant died on 9-4-1993, the name of the tenant appeared in 1996 Telephone Directory in respect of telephone No. 665371 installed at No. 42 in Jayanagar. If really the tenant occupied the said premises only for the purpose of providing treatment to his cancer patient wife, after her death in 1993, there was no occasion for him to continue in the same premises. It is also brought on record that during the relevant period the consumption of electricity in the petition schedule premises was very meagre despite the tenant having Refrigerator, Television, Mixer, quarter HP electric motor and other domestic lightings. All these factors prove beyond doubt that the tenant was not temporarily residing at Jayanagar. Since he claims that the said premises belongs to Nagaraj, the Trial Court should have allowed I.A. No. 15 and summoned him to ascertain the ownership of the said premises. Since the said application was rejected by the Trial Court, it is proper to allow the same and to remand the matter to record further evidence only with regard to Section 21(1)(p) of the Act.
5. Accordingly, this revision petition is partly allowed. The rejection of the petition under Section 21(1)(h) of the Act is confirmed. The rejection of petition under Section 21(1)(p) of the Act and the order rejecting I.A. No. 15 are set aside. I.A. No. 15 filed in the Trial Court to summon Nagaraj is allowed. Matter is remanded to the Trial Court to adduce additional evidence in relation to Section 21(1)(p) by the parties. The parties are directed to appear before the Trial Court on 28-1-2003 without any further notice. The Trial Court is directed to dispose of the matter within ten weeks from the aforementioned date.
6. Office is directed to transmit the records to the Trial Court forthwith along with a copy of this order for compliance.