Karnataka High Court
M.R. Ramachandra vs Shantakumari And Anr. on 8 October, 2002
Equivalent citations: ILR2003KAR2728, 2003(1)KARLJ283, 2002 AIR - KANT. H. C. R. 3086, 2003 AIHC 40, (2003) 1 KANT LJ 283, (2003) 1 RENCJ 430, (2003) 1 RENCR 165, (2003) 1 RENTLR 297, (2003) 1 KCCR 107
Author: A.V. Srinivasa Reddy
Bench: A.V. Srinivasa Reddy
ORDER A.V. Srinivasa Reddy, J.
1. This revision under Section 50(1) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 is preferred against the order dated 11th June, 2001 passed by the Court below dismissing the petition filed under Section 21(1)(h) and (d) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961.
2. The petitioner-landlord filed the petition for eviction of the respondent-tenant from the petition premises situate at No. 69, 6th Main, Chamarajpet, Bangalore, on the grounds that the premises is required by him for his own use and occupation and that the tenant is guilty of conduct which is a nuisance or annoyance to the adjoining or neighbouring occupiers. The case of the petitioner under clause (h) is based on his requirement of the premises for purpose of expanding the computer training centre that is established by him. The Court below disbelieved the case of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner did not produce any documentary evidence during the trial to show that a computer training centre is being run by him. On finding that the space available now with the landlord is sufficient for the convenient stay of himself, his family and for running the computer training centre the Court below answered the question of comparative hardship in favour of the respondent-tenant. The case put forth by the petitioner under Clause (d) was also disbelieved by the Court below relying on the B report filed by the police in regard to a complaint of nuisance filed by the petitioner against the respondent. Being aggrieved by the order of dismissal passed by the Court below the petitioner has come up in this revision.
3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The respondents despite service of notice have not put in their appearance in this revision.
4. By Karnataka Act 34 of 2001, a new legislation to replace the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 was brought on the anvil. The new legislation which is called the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 has come into force with effect from 31st December, 2001. The Act has brought about sweeping changes to provisions relating to regulation of eviction. Section 27(r) of the Act deals with the requirement of the premises by the landlord for his occupation or occupation of any member of his family. The said provision reads:
"27. Protection of tenants against eviction.--(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract, no order or decree for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made by the Court, District Judge or High Court in favour of the landlord against a tenant, save as provided in Sub-section (2).
(2) The Court may, on an application made to it in the prescribed manner, make an order for the recovery of possession of the premises on one or more of the following grounds only, namely.--
.......
.......
(r) that the premises let are required, whether in the same form or after reconstruction or re-building, by the landlord for occupation for himself or any member of his family if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable accommodation:
Provided that where the landlord has acquired the premises by transfer, no application for the recovery of possession of such premises shall lie under this clause unless a period of one year has elapsed from the date of the acquisition.
Explanation I.--For the purposes of this clause and Sections 28 to 31.--
(i) where the landlord in his application supported by an affidavit submits that the premises are required by him for occupation for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, the Court shall presume that the premises are so required;
(ii) premises let for a particular use may be required by the landlord for a different use if such use is permissible under law.
Explanation II.--For the purposes of this clause and Sections 28 to 31 an occupation by the landlord of any part of a building of which any premises let out by him forms a part shall not disentitle him to recover possession of such premises".
Reading Clause (r) of Sub-section (2) of Section 27 harmoniously with the Explanations I and n the intention of the Legislature to do away with the requirement by the landlord of proving the need of the premises for his bona fide use and occupation becomes all too apparent. The Sub-clause (i) to Explanation I in terms states that the Court shall presume that the premises are so required. The Sub-clause (ii) states that the premises let for a particular use may be required by the landlord for a different use if such use is permissible under law. Explanation II clarifies that an occupation by the landlord of any part of a building of which any premises let out by him forms a part shall not disentitle him to recover the possession of such premises.
5. If the case of the petitioner is examined keeping in view the import of these provisions, it becomes obvious that the requirement of the premises for his own use and occupation can never be questioned. A presumption that arises under law is irrefutable. The only question that, therefore, remains for consideration under the new Act is to see if the petitioner has any other suitable accommodation which would meet his present requirement. It is not the case of the tenant that the petitioner has any other accommodation. The other accommodation which forms part of the out-house is also occupied by the other tenant. Moreover that forms a separate part of the building and is not attached to that portion which is used by the petitioner for running the computer institute. On the other hand, the accommodation which is in the occupation of the present tenant is adjacent to the rooms in which the landlord is presently running the institute of information technology. The case as made out by the landlord for occupation of the premises is that he wants to expand the computer centre by adding more rooms to the existing accommodation. The sketch produced at Ex. P. 2 in the Court below goes to show that the accommodation now available with the petitioner is just one room, hall, dining, kitchen and pooja. From Ex. P. 2 it is clear that there is no other suitable accommodation available for the petitioner for expanding his computer centre. Therefore, the petitioner would be entitled to an order for recovery of possession under Section 27(2)(r) of the Act.
6. In the result, for the reasons stated above, this revision petition is allowed setting aside the order dated 11-6-2001 passed by the learned V Additional Small Causes Judge, Bangalore, in H.R.C. No. 10075 of 1995. The petition filed by the petitioner-landlord for eviction of the tenant is allowed under Section 27(2)(r) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999. The respondents are given two months' time to quit and deliver vacant possession of the premises to the petitioner-landlord.