Bangalore District Court
Smt. Yasmeen Sultana vs Mr. Khalid Irfan on 20 September, 2016
1 SCCH-1 HRC-44/2016
IN THE COURT OF THE CHIEF JUDGE,
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 20th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016
PRESENT: SRI H.P.SANDESH, B.A.L, LL.B.,
CHIEF JUDGE
HRC No.44/2016
Petitioner: Smt. Yasmeen Sultana,
Aged about 54 years,
W/o. Zafarullah Khan,
Residing at No.8, 1st Cross,
Someshwaranagar,
Jayanagar 1st Block East,
Bangalore - 560 011.
(By Sri. Riyaz Ahmed Sheriff, Advocate)
Vs.
Respondents: Mr. Khalid Irfan,
Major in age,
S/o. Late Abdul Basith,
R/at No.17, 1st Floor, II 'B' Cross,
Samadhana Nagar, Dr. A.M.C. Road,
Near K.G.Halli Police Station,
Bangalore - 560 045.
(By Shami Ahmed Pathan, Advocate)
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this petition against the respondent under Section 27(2) (a) (r) and (c) of the Karnataka 2 SCCH-1 HRC-44/2016 Rent Act, 1999 for eviction of the respondent from the petition schedule premises.
2. Brief facts of the case are as under:-
It is contended by the petitioner that, she is the owner of schedule property bearing No.40, Cockburn Road, Shivajinagar, Bangalore - 560 051 and the respondent is a tenant under the petitioner on a monthly rent of Rs.3,062/-.
3. It is further contended that, the respondent is a chronic defaulter in payment of rents and not paid the rents from 01.09.2015 to 30.04.2016 for seven months amounting to Rs.24,496/-. Inspite of request and demand and legal notice issued on 11.03.2016 and it is also served on the respondent, he did not comply with the demands made in the notice nor replied the same.
4. Further petitioner has contended that, the premises which is in occupation of the respondent is required to the petitioner and for her son who is married and intends to start the business in Ball Bearings which is the family 3 SCCH-1 HRC-44/2016 business of the family of the petitioner and the son of the petitioner has got experience in the said Ball Bearing business. Further, it is the bounded duty of the petitioner to provide a shop premises to her son to start the business and the schedule premises is very much suitable and convenient to the petitioner and for her son. This fact has been brought to the knowledge of the respondent and even though the respondent agreed to vacate the premises has not done the same. Also contended that, the need of the petitioner is genuine and bonafide. Hence, prayed this Court to pass an order of eviction on the ground sought in the petition.
5. In pursuance of this petition, this Court issued notice against the respondent and the respondent appeared before the Court through his counsel and filed the objection statement admitting that, he is tenant under the petitioner and has not disputed the rate of rent. The respondent also in the objection statement has admitted the issuance of legal notice to him and contended that, due to the bad health, he could not reply to the said notice.
4 SCCH-1 HRC-44/2016
6. In the objection statement respondent has admitted that, the petitioner is having grown up son and the family of the petitioner is doing the business in ball bearing and the petitioner has requested the respondent to vacate the premises. However, respondent had sought 3 months time to vacate the premises in the month of February 2016, but due to the ill-health the respondent could not vacate the premises. Since the respondent is not in a position to do the business in the schedule premises, prayed to grant one month time to vacate the schedule premises.
7. The petitioner in order to prove her case, she examined herself as PW.1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to P.13. On the other hand respondent has not adduced any evidence before the Court.
8. After closure of the evidence, I heard the arguments of the petitioner counsel and respondent counsel.
9. After having heard the arguments urged by the petitioner counsel and the respondent counsel and the 5 SCCH-1 HRC-44/2016 material available on record, the points that arise for my consideration are as under:-
1) Whether the petitioner has made out the ground to invoke section 27(2)(a) of the Karnataka Rent Act?
2) Whether the petitioner has made out the ground to invoke section 27(2)(r) of the Karnataka Rent Act?
3) Whether the petitioner has made out the ground to invoke section 27(2)(c) of the Karnataka Rent Act?
4) What order?
10. My finding on the above said points is as under:-
Point No.1 : In the Affirmative,
Point No.2 : In the Affirmative,
Point No.3 : In the Negative,
Point No.4 : As per final order,
for the following:-
REASONS
11. Point No.1 :- It is the case of the Petitioner
that, the respondent is a defaulter in payment of rent and he is in arrears of rent of Rs.24,496/- from 01.09.2015 to 30.04.2016 for seven months. Inspite of request and demand 6 SCCH-1 HRC-44/2016 and legal notice issued and the same was served on the respondent, has not complied with the demand. The respondent though filed the objection statement to the main petition, he has only contended that the averments made in part 3 are not fully correct, but he admits the legal notice issued by the petitioner. He has contended that, due to ill- health respondent could not reply to the said notice. Further respondent has also not denied the fact that, he has committed the default in payment rent for the period and amount mentioned in the petition.
12. The petitioner has also relied upon the Legal notice which is marked as Ex.P11 and also postal receipt and postal acknowledgment which are marked as Ex.P12 and Ex.P13. I have already pointed out that, there is not dispute with regard to the notice. On perusal of Ex.P11 Legal notice, it is specifically mentioned in the notice that, the respondent is a chronic defaulter in payment of rent and not paid the rent from September 2015 and hence called upon to pay the arrears of rent and to vacate the premises. This notice was 7 SCCH-1 HRC-44/2016 issued on 11.03.2016 and the same was served on the respondent. It has to be noted that, the present petition is filed on 30.05.2016 and there is clear statutory notice of 2 months. I have already pointed out that, the respondent has not disputed the issuance of notice and the claim of defaulter in payment of rent. On account of non-payment of rent, the Petitioner has proved that, the respondent is in arrears of rent and hence it is a fit case to invoke Sec.27(2)(a) of the Karnataka Rent Act and also to direct the respondent to pay the arrears of rent of Rs.24,496/- in favour of the petitioner. Hence I have answered point No.1 in the Affirmative.
13. Point No.2: Petitioner has invoked Sec.27(2)(r) of Karnataka Rent Act contending that, the petition schedule premises is required for the petitioner and her son who is married and intends to start the business in Ball bearing business which is the family business of the petitioner and request also made to the respondent to vacate the premises. The respondent in the objection statement has not denied the requirement and conceded the request of the petitioner. Also 8 SCCH-1 HRC-44/2016 admitted that, the family of the petitioner is doing the business in Ball bearings. Further it is contended that, they sought 3 months time in the month of February 2016 and due to ill-health respondent the was unable to vacate the premises and prayed one month time to vacate the premises.
14. For having conceded the requirement of the petitioner and nothing is there to decide the issue between the parties, and also the respondent has not led any evidence before the Court, and the counsel also in the argument fairly admitted and made the statement that, if one month time is granted they are going to vacate the premises as contended in the objection statement, I am of the opinion that, the petitioner has made out the ground to allow the petition U/s.27(2)(r) of Karnataka Rent Act. Hence I answer point No.2 in the Affirmative.
15. Point No.3: Petitioner has sought relief u/s. 27(2)(c) of Karnataka Rent Act. On perusal of the petition nowhere petitioner has contended that the tenant has used 9 SCCH-1 HRC-44/2016 the premises for the purpose other than that for which they were let out without obtaining the consent in writing of landlord. In the absence of any pleading and the evidence, this Court cannot consider the grounds urged in the petition. Hence, I am of the opinion that, petitioner has not made out any ground to invoke section 27(2)(c) of Karnataka Rent Act. Hence I answer point No.3 in the Negative.
16. Point No.4:- In the result, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioner U/s. 27(2)(a) and (r) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 is hereby allowed.
The respondent is directed to pay arrears of rent of Rs.24,496/- and also pay the rent upto date @ 3,062/- p.m. from 01.05.2016 to till she vacates the schedule premises and she shall vacate and handover vacant possession of the schedule premises to the petitioner within one (1) months from the date of this order.
Petition filed by the petitioner U/s.27(2)(c) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 is rejected. 10 SCCH-1 HRC-44/2016 Under the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, Script thereof is corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court dated this the 20th day of September' 2016) (H.P.SANDESH) Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore.
SCHEDULE Shop premises in property No.40, Cockburn road, Shivajinagar, Bangalore - 560 051, measuring East to West 20 feet and North to South 7 feet, bounded on the:
East by : Portion of the same property, West by : Cockburn road, North by : Portion of same property, South by : Passage.
ANNEXURE List of witness examined on behalf of the Petitioner:
PW.1 : Smt. Yasmeen Sultana 11 SCCH-1 HRC-44/2016 List of documents marked on behalf of Petitioner:
Ex.P-1 : Certified copy of sale deed Ex.P-2 : Tax paid receipt Ex.P-3 : Certified copy of katha certificate Ex.P-4 : Certified copy of Tax paid receipt Ex.P-5 : Certified copy of katha certificate Ex.P-6 : Certified copy of katha extract Ex.P-7 to 10: 4 rent receipts Ex.P-11 : Office copy of legal notice Ex.P-12 : postal receipt Ex.P-13 : postal acknowledgement
List of witness examined on behalf of the Respondent: Nil List of documents marked on behalf of Respondent: Nil (H.P.SANDESH) Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore.
*S.D.* *************