Karnataka High Court
Smt. Efrigin Joseph Fanty (Since ... vs Sadananda Shankar Pednekar S/O Shankar ... on 20 June, 2006
Equivalent citations: ILR2006KAR3379, 2006(5)KARLJ309
ORDER H.V.G. Ramesh, J.
1. This petition is filed under Section 115 of CPC being aggrieved by the order passed by the District Judge, Karwar in Rent Revision Petition No. 24/88 in confirming the order passed by the Munsiff, Kanvar in H.R.C. No. 2/85 in rejecting the petition filed by the petitioner seeking for eviction.
2. The petition premises situate at Karwar Municipal No. 1477, Karwar. Originally, the petition was filed by the mother of the petitioner herein seeking for possession of the petition premises from the respondent herein who is the tenant under the landlady for a monthly rental of Rs. 40/-. She has contended that her son is a diploma holder in Air Condition & Refrigeration serving at Bombay and he intends to establish a business in the petition premises as such she require the vacant possession of the petition premises for his bonafide use and occupation. The said petition was resisted by the tenant. After enquiry, the trial Court held that the requirement of the son is not the requirement of the landlady, as such, denied the order of eviction. As against that order revision was preferred. The District Judge in revision has passed an order of eviction, against which, H.R.R.P.No. 165/95 had been preferred by the tenant before this Court seeking to set aside the order of the revision Court. However, this Court has remanded the matter back to the revisional Court with a direction to reconsider the matter in accordance with law. Thereafter, the learned District Judge, once again considered the case of the parties and although it has answered all the points in favour of the landlady, but came to the conclusion that requirement of the son cannot be the requirement of the landlady and that after retirement it works out hardship to the tenant if he is vacated and accordingly, dismissed the revision of the landlady. Hence, this revision petition by the landlord.
3. Heard the Counsel for the respective parties.
4. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner herein that the trial Court as well as the revisional Court has committed an error in holding that the requirement of the son is not the requirement of the landlady. Furthermore in view of the amendment of the Rent Control Act in the year 1999 there is a change in philosophy of requirement and the burden is thrown on the tenant to rebut the evidence of requirement and initial presumption has to be there on the part of the landlord and accordingly, submitted that the question of considering the hardship does not arise. Further, submitted that although another eviction petition is filed to vacate the other tenant, he requires both the premises for establishing his business and that there is an alternative suitable accommodation available to the respondent.
5. Per-contra, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-tenant has submitted that availability of an accommodation at a distant place is not the suitable alternative accommodation to the tenant and there is no error as such committed by the trial Court and the revisional Court in passing the impugned orders; also submitted that there is another premises which has been vacated and the same has not been occupied by the landlord and that the need of the petitioner is not genuine.
6. Now, let me consider, Whether the revision requires to be allowed?
7. As regards hardship is concerned, both the Courts below have consistently held that it works out more hardship in the event of passing an order of eviction. However, after the amendment to the Rent Control Act, hardship is not the ground. Hence, the finding given in this regard has to be reversed in view of the changed philosophy. In so far as the requirement of the petition premises for the son is concerned, as per the definition under Section 27(2)(r) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 the requirement of the son is also the requirement of the landlord. The learned Counsel for the petitioner herein has also relied upon the ruling of the Division Bench reported in REVISIONAL CIVIL ILR 1982 463 wherein this Court has held that 'even the requirement of an adult, economically independent son, might become the requirement of landlord father'. In the instant case, it is noted that during the pendency of the petition the original landlord died and the son for whose requirement the petition premises is sought for is very much on record. In view of the presumption under Section 27(2)(r) of the Karnataka Rent Act, the requirement has to be treated as genuine requirement. Furthermore, it appears that there is an alternative accommodation available to the tenant 12 kms. away from Karwar. What is being argued by the Counsel for the respondent-tenant is that the said premises is not in Karwar and it is 12 kms. away from Karwar. It is not as if that there is no alternative accommodation available at all, moreover, now the tenant is retired and it is for him to go and settle back in his native place if he so desires when he has not made any other accommodation of his own to stay back at Kanvar. In view of the changed philosophy under the Rent Act and also having noted the genuine requirement of the petition premises by the petitioner and also when there is an alternative accommodation available to the tenant, the impugned orders passed by both the Courts below are liable to be set aside.
8. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed and the impugned orders passed by the trial Court as well as the revisional Court are set aside. The respondent-tenant is directed to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the premises to the petitioner within six months from today. Parties to bear their own costs.