JUDGMENT
S. Venkataraman, J.
1. This Revision Petition is filed by the landlord/petitioner against the order of the Learned District Judge, Gulbarga, rejecting his claim under Section 21(1)(p) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act.
2. The petitioner’s claim fro eviction of the respondent under Section 21(1)(a)(b)(i) of the Rent Control Act had been allowed by the Trial Court but that order came to be set aside by the learned District Judge in a Revision Petition filed by the tenant. Against that order by the Learned District Judge, the petitioner filed a Revision Petition before the Court and this Court had remitted the matter back to the Learned District Judge to consider the claim of the landlord under Section 21(1) (p) of the Act after giving an opportunity to the respondent/tenant to file objections to that claim and recording further evidence if any. The Learned District Judge after permitting the respondent to file objections recorded additional evidence in respect of the claim under Section 21(1)(p) and he has rejected the claim of the petitioner mainly on the ground that the respondent had acquired vacant possession of the building opposite to the petition premises as an additional accommodation to carry on his business and that as such it cannot be said that the respondent has acquired suitable accommodation.
3. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that in view of the undisputed facts that the respondent has evicted his tenant who was occupying the premises opposite to the petition premises not only on the ground that he requires additional accommodation for his business but also on the ground that he is facing threat of eviction from the petition premises, and that as the respondent is now carrying on the business in that premises also, the finding of the Learned District Judge that the case under Section 21(1)(P) is not made out cannot be sustained.
4. It is not disputed that the respondent’s partner Ramgopal had filed HRC.No. 46/80 before the Principal Munsiff, Gulbarga, for eviction of his tenant on the ground thai the present petitioner had given a notice to him to vacate the petition premises and also on the ground that he wanted additional, accommodation for his business, it is not disputed that the premises involved in HRC. No. 46/80 had been purchased by Ramgopal. It is also not disputed that petition was allowed and the Revision Petition filed by the respondent’s tenant in CRP. 43/82 was dismissed and the respondent secured possession of those premises. It is also not disputed that the respondent is now carrying on the business both in the petition premises as well as in the premises which were acquired in pursuance of the eviction order. Though R.W.1 in his evidence has tried to make it appear that the other premises is not bigger than the petition premises, Ex.P. 11 the certified copy of the order in HRC. 46/80 shows that this R.W. 1 had put forth the version in that case that the present petition premises where they are carrying on the business is only 12′ x 8′ whereas the other premises comprises a shop portion measuring 11’x18′ and a room on the rear side measuring 11′ x 14′. It is therefore dear that the respondent has come into possession of a shop which is bigger in area apart from the room on the rear side. The premises which the respondent has secured cannot be said to be not suitable for the business which the respondent is carrying on in the petition premises, as admittedly the respondent is carrying on the same business in that other premises. These undisputed facts clearly establish that the respondent has acquired vacant possession of a premises suitable for carrying on the business, which the respondent is now carrying on in the petition premises.
5. The Learned District Judge has pointed out that the respondent secured eviction of their tenant in respect of the other premises on the ground that they wanted additional accommodation for their business and as such it cannot be said that the petitioner has acquired suitable accommodation. First, it is seen that the respondent sought for eviction on the ground that they were under threat of eviction from their landlord inasmuch as the landlord had filed a eviction petition and even an order of eviction had been passed by the lower Court. The order in this case by the Trial Court allowing the petition had been produced in that case. The Trial Court as well as the revisional Court have taken into consideration that circumstance also while ordering eviction. Secondly, the case that was put forth by the respondent in that other case was that their business had increased and as they were in need of additional accommodation they were entitled to secure possession of their own premises. It was not their case that apart from the accommodation which they had in the present petition premises they wanted the other premises also to carry on the business. It is in that connection, the respondent has highlighted the dimensions of the present petition premises and the dimensions of the premises in respect of which they were seeking eviction. Because the other premises was bigger, the respondent sought for eviction on the ground that they were in need of more accommodation. The learned District Judge was not correct in holding that the respondent acquired possession of the other premises as an additional accommodation to carry on their Business.
6. Even if it can be said that the respondent acquired possession of the other premises as an additional accommodation, that cannot be a reason to negative the petitioner’s claim under Section 21(1) (p). Under Section 21(1)(p) if the tenant acquires vacant possession of a suitable building he would be liable for eviction. A suitable building necessarily means a building which is suitable for the purpose for which tenanted premises are being used by the tenant. If it is found that the tenant has acquired vacant possession of the building in which he can carry on the business which he is carrying on in the tenanted premises, then it must be held that the conditions under Clause{p) have been fulfilled.
7. The Learned Counsel for the respondent relied on the ruling in SISTLA RAMALAKSHMAMMA v. LAKSHMI GENERAL STORES, 1975 All India Rent Control Journal 130 in support of his contention that if the tenant acquires additional accommodation to carry on his business that would not give a right to the landlord to seek eviction.That case arose under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act and the relevant provision stipulated that the landlord would be entitled to evict the tenant if the tenant has secured alternative building. The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that construction of new building for the purpose of expansion of the business and not for shifting the business entirely from the suit premises would not amount to securing alternative accommodation. The emphasis was laid on the word ‘alternative’ to come to that conclusion. In Karnataka Rent Control Act Clause (p) only requires the landlord to prove that the tenant has acquired vacant possession of a suitable building and not an ” alternative building”, The fact that the tenant acquires a building to increase or expand his business and uses that building also for his business in addition to the tenanted premises, would not be relevant. In this connection, I may refer to the decision of this Court in Dr. SHASHIBHUSHAN v. M/s. BATA INDIA LIMITED, wherein it has been held as hereunder:-
“It is abundantly clear from a perusal of Clause (p) that the suitability of the building built, acquired or allotted necessarily has reference to the premises in the occupation of the tenant and has no nexus or relevance to his further requirement on account of increase in the volume of his business, as in the instant case.”
As such, the fact that the tenant may require even the other premises in addition to the disputed premises to carry on the business cannot be a ground to hold that the respondent has not become liable to be evicted under Clause (p). This is a case where the respondent has subsequently acquired possession of the other premises on the ground that the respondent is facing eviction in these proceedings and that he also requires the larger premises for their business and the respondent is actually using the other premises for the same business ‘which they are carrying on in the petition premises. The respondent is therefore liable to be evicted under Section 21(1)(p) of the Act. The finding of the learned District Judge in this regard is unreasonable and cannot be sustained.
8. For the above reasons, this petition is allowed and the order of the learned District Judge is set aside. The petitioner’s claim under Section 21(1)(p) is allowed and the respondent is directed to vacate and hand over possession of the petition premises to the petitioner. The respondent is give three months’s time to vacate the premises.