Sri K Kalim S/O S A Karim vs Smt J Sayeedunnisa on 15 July, 2010

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri K Kalim S/O S A Karim vs Smt J Sayeedunnisa on 15 July, 2010

Bench: Jawad Rahim

IN THE HIGH COURT OF i{ARNATN(A, BANGALORE
QATEQ THIS THE 15 TH DAY OF 58%.? 2619

EEFGRE

"rue H€)ﬁi'8LE MR. JUSTICE zawm Rm-11M' %

amveem SR1 K mum 5x0 5 A KARIM % AGEB gamer 53 veam, ' 519 5.4:. i(ARIMf R/AT No.4/7, FIRST PLOQR,' mo mm, MASJED $TR1i'E,T_'= BSA ROAD ckossgi; % % % EANC-EALORE -sacaosa --


(av sa: 3:; 5
AW=  . '   % '    %

SMTV'J"14$AYE'E9U~NM'¥SA , 55 YEARS, ; ways we mm mesa, 1' *%«:.&!A? .,No.4]?,&%2,L§~:D MAIN, ' M"3¥SJIi>A_S1'REET, as». RQA9 % Tcaé-ss,;La§NGALoaE ~ ssmos R$P(3!\iDEﬁT (8Y"SR.i;«;_VENKATA 888$)? ma % AV , SR3, MALLA Ream B V, ADV. ma cm) _ % mas u/s 45 as mamrmm REM' Am;

_»_é£GAINST THE Jumaazam ma DEGREE DATED 39.11.99 masses IN :~:.R.c:.uo.173;2m7 cm me me as CHIEF JUEGE, COURT (3? SMALL CAUSE, BANGALQRE, R Q,» 0"

Auxawxras THE PETITION FILES u/s 27(2)(r) & 31(:)(a)

-:1? mmsmram RECT ACT sea mmon.

Thig pstition canning can for orders this day, their made the foI%cw§n§:-

Tenant is in revision agaifwt tfsgfcrdsr HRC Ne.178l2W7 dam 3o.1y1k;%2ao§k9 gr. me 5r the Court of the crust ;:,'_I._t;;riga?_. smuk% causes, Ban-gaiere. '» b' '

2. " "

Frnfﬁ facts manifest are that;

Tt:iieVVV_rie2sVpcrxdéAé11tb'!fi::§ff"e§t'w" Smt.J.$ay&dur:n$a initsiatad evicticn _prt§'€a§din§§s ag a"i;rs5t the petitimar herein under ""'p':§;a*§féit$':i:$ ¢ssmn2y¢z; (r) and semen 31(1)(a) or the an the premisa that the petitioner was inda;_§b1a§!- schedule pmmiws as a tasnant for a

-Vﬁieried under lease daed dated 16.5.2062 on a rent an? Rs.2,6&9,I- which was enhanced tn _,Rfs.3,1381-. She zmuires premiaa for her main use and V' cccupatictx. In support of such claim, she avarmd the entire building cempriaeas gmund ﬂwr, which has onty two {'7 Vt.» 6"

bedrooms. She has twc childran pursuing ceilega educaticm, wha rm-ed separate room for study andV1i~§ying. Her son has also: reachad rnarriageahie age seeded in life. Bwides, the omtupatitm aV?J:'h§i$:

otherwise is totaify insufﬁcient, Vigaﬁarvit. was (:5 has waif.

4. In the eviction pmcéeéiings irA: 'HRC*!\V|¢, the % rwmndent antaenad a ra " qifestioning we mnahltitsv cf evictidﬁ ' :.¢;:x 'a_gverai grounds, came of which thégé ahtaining said premises, v":j'V_R§§;>2,,66,mGi- as seaurity dapasivlg' by the landlady and hes-

inmntiasi 'is onbj'€::V Em rent: and collect addiﬁonai sec u5jrity°L..de;$§>sii;,_V_ §inc§§: {he reiationship between him and :§§' a%:AA.c§i*:3_ia!, did not ask for further dcacurmnts :Eseia£f.§:ig fh_:~v,VV'_g£i§':§'n¢e sf F«2s.2,ﬁ£3,i3aL'§C3/-. It was aim urged tthzit bf 5% enhancement in rent peréadicailvz she éns?a;te&~~Rs.1o,ooe/- per month with addmona: security "déwéit af Rs.5,0G,O0O!-. He had no choice but to decline. %%Re bad man: enemas for as.9£m;- and :~zs.s3w;-- on 1G.11.23% and 5.12.306 respectivehr.

5. Apart fwm sutzh contanticns, he aswrted that tha accornmodatian availabie was more than sufﬁcient fa; the need af the far-airy members :35 the landlady than were put ta any inconvenience. Despifé axe acmmntodatim available in haf"'occ.u_p§atinffé_;}hngV§<é:;£Agtii:A for rajaction of tha psiiitisn Vaper>f«fr§5rr_i that wwfd result in case cf t§isv..Li§$°i¢tio§§. _" i

5. saw on the mgt¢riai'pnr§;=ésit;'an' in 't%w-ﬁieadings of awe parties, the m.aa%as:gwga them to ma evidence and:.tE&@ landlady has been uaxan1irie &..t§§=3r%s§y3Ef'é:::1d.'te:-em: has examined hirmaifv :35 Ex.P9 are mm are by the iandiady} ralied on 16 dccumanbs.

Angsyszng trxae'-;_i{id"en§'ss, ma {earned trim Judge held the grounds avaikabb to her under and 3I(1)(a) at' the Karnataka Rent Act enEi%'Jing"he§'*tAo a decree af aviation and the defence of the ten§n§'w$s mo faebha to dang such ralief. In the rauftarst ";i€:s§i*i0ft, tha petition «mm to be wowed by the impugned wxirder granting two months time to the tzanant be vaaatna this pmmima 5LLV 5

7. Assaiiing the said cerder dated 31.11.20€39, the tenant is in am revisicgz.

8. At length, teamed counsei for the petitiaaaﬁhiirﬁad grounds against the impugnad ardar. Fwsﬁy, iégé that there are maiaﬁda in ﬂ1av.in'iti3tianrj"' and ccnsequentty contended thaii:.§§..é?_aiiV "%}f:a"-lg new as pleaded by tn: taﬁdzgay, i§ 'ca§si:!_$§ sazzsm she was the avaitab!e..acc§m:§i"§d§ti9n. ' "S'§»;;a§..';:hs main ground cf chalienge is uéIéf__:'1a§xdV of higher rent and security _dsa ;m_sit, ieﬁéépt said ground evidence iigiaiﬁ in the absence of whichgvit hamw he;a;-mmmm.

.9. cﬁhaﬂm evwence of P.W.1 and the dcggjmeats ésuiapasrt hat ccnbentinn shows the "«§.$;suM';tatuacry notice dﬁcrihing her need. A"ifﬁ-§_.fa§i;:'*«_..§1fxé§§vfesgandsnt is gainfufly employed in an autaao:i¥'o2sAéé" A bcdy, when reasidencelaccommodaﬁen is .1.s:a'_§!ab'ire..tao the empioyaas, is EEK in dispute. However it is that £andiady has mt onty seught evictiaan under

-~--p}rovis'aons af secaan 27(2) (1') of am Act, but also under pravisions of 31(}.)Ct(a) of the Kamawca Rent Act, far am"

grant 0!' ordar, whieh inecirpcraiaeuif in the act far the benefit ef certain category cf persons like widowgagniaar citizens and hanéicagaped paerscns. Feﬁtioner -is we widaw and has avaiked the benefit bf C§ai.i§€(_3;j.:

Section 31 of the Karnataka R8ﬁt';§i¢t;'«3§iC.ii'! a_:v'4'{u§iiiiifVV:s§is?gii': 'V by her is far the first timeﬁ, If of"§:_iiict.ic:i"

passad, iaridiady wouid sufief"adv4ai*seiy;--..ii£:rVV"éii$i§ﬁe'iition"'V that she *3 we widow» ig Iiéﬁiaiiéo act in dispute that For the ﬁre beneﬁt of %ion of the Act is intended u3"gi'f:«a1i En' we person covered in receiver immediate pcsseﬁiefiisi hgivan ts an widaw, unless proved itijzivvngiiritii-a.§j;;~.:.uThe2'efene, ti-ta material evidence in""iiueh.iaction is rial: se, as is naquired for '¢i:§iari '"'s£,4l':l't'.1ﬁ_'i'v'.':{n>'E3-'_iel' provisinns of the Act. iiiat as it my, the iandiady has laid evidence siip;ié6rtAh:ar claim under Sacticn 27(2)(r) aisar. Since A 'iiéaiiétign under Section 2?(r) wstuiatw prwumption in V' iévaur of the person that he requires pmmiaas for '4 bonafide we and occupation urilm pmved to the contract, that benefit is available to her. The tria! Court an both P' , 3""

mm grounds recorded :1 Finding an fact entiﬂing her an aviation. Thus, I find no inﬁrmity, iilegalitv cs? atherfwise he inisarﬁere with the same.

11. In the mug petitien faik. '(he srder>~..'§f cmnﬁmmd.

12. However, the Saarnad cﬁttnsaéi ~ wauid cnnwnd that the tirmiVg:*a.§1tQ"v:§s.aVrtEg£=;z§a.».¢1ﬁnthg.4 1 "

and rmuires ﬁartha Zgears 'A I3. warned ccunsa¥_¢_ﬁe:.r ti'..':_ia !gI:1ii--E§;1; r"-i1%a_s appased grant time beyand parted that the . '

14. 1?-£a.v.r:i'rzg !'a'eaAa§:'*:c.!V and particulariy, naticing t:!'1g_;p&sible.V hargisiwipvithe tenant wiii have to farm due to er§i5ez* and as it is a reswantiasi premiszes, if the ﬁ:;a'sTs'.gsV;t§t'A 9 months time be vacate the premises on ﬂté'*--cen.diti-:.§ﬁAand harms on which the lease was ohtainsd fret}: thizé day, it «if! mat the ends af justice, subject In ﬂying H3213 rmuiariy as ané when it actzrues daes and ﬁling an afﬁdavit in this Court undertaking to vacate V ﬁne premisa wiﬁwin a periati of 9 mnrsths. ﬁuch an affidavit (}<;/ shaﬂ W ﬂied is: the Regismr wwin a period of two masks from now. In case of any defauit in payment: :3!' ran: the antler wiﬁ be revoked and aw iandiady wili e~.g}.t.e.'=:VsF.:':1't."*4:§.'--.T:!"'.'i-2.2 aréer in quﬁtion. At the same respendentﬂandlady sh-an afafuﬁzi. '_ §i{e¢:;sri£~; V' arrtauntiadvence depesim V by A' 'tvsanséirﬁ - arrears of rmt if any at the' o.btaiz1ir1§_"vﬁ6'é§é&%iV}4:n. 'V

15. In {arms of zthxe at;<:W,, .ﬁ'S?¥§}:§ti_cn ;é£a'rz:¥s d§sposad cf.

Sd/'ﬁg;

Judge

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court