ORDER
R. Gururajan, J.
1. The Mangalore Jesuit Education Society, a Society registered, is before this Court, challenging the order in Rent Revision Petition No. 312/87 on the file of District Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore, dt. 17-7-96 on the following facts.
2. Parties would be referred to as per their ranking viz., landlord and tenant in this order. The landlord Society filed a petition before the Principal Munsiff, Mangalore in HRC No. 411/83 seeking eviction under Section 21(1)(h) of the KRC Act. According to the petition averments the Society is running various educational institutions situated in one compound called College Gardens. Petition premises is situated in the same compound. There are several staff members working in the Institution and they need residential accommodation. The Society is unable to meet their demand and therefore they want this premises. They further contend that greater hardship would be caused to the petitioner if an order is not passed on this petition.
3. The petition was contested by the tenant. The tenant denied the need of the landlord. It was also contended that just prior to the filing of the petition one building where middle school was run became vacant and that was leased to one SADHU BEEDI WORKS. Parties examined themselves in addition to filing several documents. Trial Judge framed 2 issues, one with regard to bona fide requirement and second with regard to hardship in para four of the order. Both issues he held in favour of the Society. This order of the trial Judge was challenged before the Revisional Court. Revisional
Judge ruled against the Society. It allowed the revision filed by the tenant in the impugned order. In these circumstances the Society is before this Court challenging the order of the revisional Judge.
4. I have heard Sri D’Sa, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri B. L. Acharya, learned Counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and 5. I have perused the impugned order in the light of their arguments.
5. Admittedly the petition is filed under Section 21(1)(h) of the KRC Act. Landlord has sought for eviction on the ground of a need for their staff members in the petition. The trial Judge notices the evidence of P.W. 1 and the documents produced at Exs. P. 1 to 22. P1 to P17 are the applications submitted by staff members with regard to their requirement. Ex. P21 is the allotment of building to SADHU BEEDI WORKS. It is a non-residential one. Trial Judge noticing the requirement of staff members has ruled that a case is made out by the landlord. In fact the trial Judge rules that staff members are being allotted quarters and there is no reason to doubt the intention of the Society in the light of the earlier allotment of quarters in favour of the Society and in the light of Exs. P1 to P17. Trial Judge also notices that the lease of a building to SADHU BEEDI WORKS (non-residential premises) cannot by itself disentitle the Society. It also holds that it may not be difficult to get accommodation in the event of eviction. When this order is challenged before the Revisional Judge, he holds that just a few months earlier to this petition Society was issued a notice by the Rent Controller, Dakshina Kannada, and has allotted the premises to SADHU BEEDI WORKS. No representation was made by the Society as to why the same should not be allotted, is the reason for rejection by the revisional Judge. Revisional Judge holds that the middle school run by the Society could be conveniently converted for allotment.
6. I am of the view that the trial Judge is right in ordering eviction. The trial Judge has noticed the need of the premises In the light of the evidence available on record. It cannot be said that the need is motivated or that the same is not based on facts. Admittedly Society is running educational institutions. It cannot be said that its intention to allot the quarters to its staff is capricious
or uncalled for. On the otherhand quarters are allotted to the teachers, as a welfare measure. It is in evidence that the quarters were allotted as a matter of fact by the Society. In the circumstances the trial Judge is right in holding that the petitioner has made out a case for eviction. The Revisional Judge without taking into consideration the absolute need of the Society has reversed the findings on the ground that the Society has not objected to the allotment of godown in favour, of SADHU BEEDI WORKS. Admittedly that was not a residential premises, and it was only a godown. It was not a case of the tenant that the same is suitable for allotment to the teachers. Suitability is also matter that requires consideration by the Court in a case like this. In the absence of the said godown being suitable for residential purposes in terms of the evidence on record the revisional Judge is not right in reversing the finding of the trial Judge only on the ground of ‘no objection’ at the time of allotment by the Rent Controller. That by itself does not disentitle the landlord to get the possession. The other reasons given by revisional Judge is equally unsustainable. It is for the landlord to decide his needs and act according to his needs. Tenant cannot dictate to a landlord with regard to his need and how it should be met. In the case on hand revisional Judge rejected the plea of the landlord by holding that Society ought to have converted another building for residential purposes. This finding is also in my opinion unsustainable. Taking an overall view of the evidence on record I am of the view that the trial Judge is right in ordering eviction and revisional Judge is wrong in exercising his revisional jurisdiction by holding against the landlord on the 2 grounds which are held to be unsustainable according to me.
7. In the circumstances petition has to succeed and the order of the revisional Judge has to be set aside on the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. Even with regard to hardship the trial Judge rightly considered that Society would suffer greater hardship in the Impugned order. Therefore even the hardship issue is an acceptable finding in my opinion.
8. However Mr. B. L. Acharya, invited my attention to a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in the case of Managing Director (MIG) Hindusthan Aeronautics Ltd.
Balanagar, Hyderabad v. Ajit Prasad Tarway. Manager, Hindusthan Aeronauctics Ltd., Balanagar Hyderabad, to contend that the High Court should not interfere in its jurisdiction in a matter like this. A reading of the said judgment would show that the Supreme Court has” ruled that the High Court should not interfere even if the order is right or wrong or in accordance with law or it has exercised its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. In the case on hand Revisional Judge has exercised his revisional jurisdiction in the impugned order has given a finding without there being any acceptable material. It is the said exercise of his power by the revisional Judge in his jurisdiction in the absence of any illegality in exercise of jurisdiction by trial Judge is a matter that require consideration at my hand. In the said circumstance it cannot be said that I cannot exercise my jurisdiction in the case on hand.
9. The second judgment relied upon by him is in the case of M. S. Zahed v. K. Raghavan, . In the said case the Supreme Court has ruled that the special statute conferring powers to revision on the High Courts, would enable High Court to exercise its jurisdiction that is wider than the one under Section 151, CPC but not so wider as to enable the High Court correct mere errors of fact. There cannot be any quarrel over this proposition. On the otherhand in the case on hand my interference is very much necessary since the revisional Judge wrongly exercised his jurisdiction in refusing to consider bona fide need in terms of Section 21(1)(h) of the Act. In the case on hand reasonable findings arrived at by the trial Judge was reversed by the Revisional Judge in violation of Section 21(1)(h). Therefore the said judgments does not support the case of the respondent. No other judgments are cited before me.
10. Taking into consideration an overall view of the matter and the facts of this case I deem it proper to set aside order of the revisional Judge and confirm the order of the trial Judge. In the result petition is allowed. Order of the trial Court is confirmed.
11. Admittedly in the present case tenant is in possession for several years, it may not be possible immediately for him to get an accommodation for him in Mangalore. In the circumstances I deem it proper to grant one year time from today to the tenant to
handover possession subject to the tenant filing an undertaking by way of an affidavit agreeing to pay the rentals regularly and without default and agreeing not to create any charge or sub-lease over the property and also further agreeing to vacate and handover possession to the landlord without insisting for an execution of this order. Said undertaking is to be filed within four weeks from today.
12. In the result this petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. No order as to costs.