Karnataka High Court
Sri C Mangilal vs B N Krishnaiah Setty on 1 June, 2011
Author: Jawad Rahim
Bench: Jawad Rahim
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 157 DAY OF JUNE 2011. BERORE EAD MANGSILAL AGED ABOUT 73 RESIDING AT NG. 25, PARE ROAD. BANGALORE ss0001 eo - yp METEOR ER (BY M/S. our Uk ABBOE! saree ADVE.) BN KRISHNATAH SEYTY. a 870 LATE 8 NARAYARA, BETTY RESIDING ATROLS? 0: EAST AMJANEYA TEMPLE STREET 8 RAG OE | BANGALORE sb0004 ° RESPONDENT ia Ser, B ry AMEKIMATH & SMT. PRATHIBHA.D.S., AOVe. ROR) HKAP FILED UNDER SEC. 46013 OF K.RLACT, AGAINST THE ORDER OATED: 02.09.2010 PASSED IN HRC.NO.207 2006 ON THE SILE OF THE CHIEF JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSE AT "BANGALORE, ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER see. FAM) OF LACT. oo TRIS HERP COMING O8 POR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE CQUET MADE THE FOLLOWING: . The orem eulbed for their aie This i¢ & tenent's petition against order of eviction. | dated 02.09.2010 In #.R.C.Ne.207/2 Chief Judga, Court of Small Causes ut ~n 2. Heard earned counsel for both.s aid 3, The respondent sought eviction of the patitioner under clause (j) and ok of Section 2702) of the Karnabake t Athy 1989 an the. praraise that he is the owner or the. en te commercial "comp oo in the name of "Wr gan Buildings' "situate "ee Avenue moed which has rte. The several shop and "comemrci establighrne responcent is the: tenant ml one of the shops bearing hoor messuring & feet x & feet 20 feet by 7% feat. He @ doing ousinese slang with his Le sane in eartnership and carrying on jewellery business. p which © 9 occupeltion of the tenent 6 best ies they intend t join both the unite and meke it one fer better prosperity of the business run in a uh 4 the meme and styie of "M/s..N.krishnaiah Shetty end Sons". &, Me gige averreg fnar fsa Senent hes chtained ~ an glternetive suitable accommodation fer his own usa and int eceormmodation ig not reculred. 5. All thase as £ were resisted 'by. the tenant through fle counter, However, he aie not "dispute the jurel relationship oF landlord and bang 'nt put seriously dispubed all plus ins _ Support t oF sche (ry ag aleo @). Referring ts the : history , relating ts his tenancy, he pointed chat he WES inducted in n the year 4871 on a monthly rent of Re. 125/- pi. FT. "which was nariodically enhanced. He alleged thet sondent/andiord was in the hebit of causing - threat arid.dun s by inflating eviction proceedings under ine provision ef Rent Control Act and withdrawing the satte rm ear néideration of enhancement. incidents! : reference i made te 4.RLC.Nes.1104/19¢4 and 1105/04 os end subsequent ane adings which according to him was filed end action wae fruetreted when fe offered to prey fore rent. He giso lebed out severe! otner circumstances ves " 2 -
exemined eg RWi end placed ade to enow thet the intention of the ressondenl/ Henciarg: WES only to extract more rant uncer treat of eviction, - "s | regards requirement @ concerned, he described é.a2 bacéiess. Commenting on the pleadings, it | is averted it so devoid of mmeterial particulars and ae epetis out" HO ircurnetances justifying order of eviction. Pointing put to tions of two shops, . it ig everred: hardly it could be called as abutting, According. te. the. terinnt, the only portion of the shep which abuts the landig ard es pramises tre area r suring 2 a » width. That according te Aim, i wil net serve toes, purpose for. which the eviction is saugone. "k wee farther averred 'that te pelton wes not maintainable. aS it ig pO. Jp comptiance to Ure stetutory _previsions 'of the Act. --
mebverel eropostions in the wére put en trial in which the , ~jandlord ar - on Als pert tenderec evidence es PWi and _ tlaced: 'velence on 13 decuments while the respondent g r@jience on 7 geocuments which includes copy of evidence in HRC.1105/1994, order Ry © ah & sheet, HRC petition and objection stebernent. The learned trial Judge enaivsing the evidence held ib outweighs in fevour of the landlord and against the tenant. Accepting ~ #, order of evictian is d. Asasiling.it, the tenant is in reyicion, nMmed counsel. for the. petitioner in relentless effort to annul the finding of. the trial Qeourt wou contend that the apervach ef. the. elel Court | @rrone@ousg as it tas exami ined the: svidence keeping presumption 4 in favour e oF F the landlord consequen nt to which vital ne ints. that, arise for "consideration neve escaped notice. Gne circumstance. hej aoinks out is phrasaolngy of Ce uee OD under euG Section 2 of 27 of the Karnataxe to ircumetances where the landlord requires tha aremises for his own use and occupstion end that ihe | haw 'no giemative suitebia accommodation : - pvailabla, "He submits that concentration of the trial Court has been on the first art and the second pert hes been omitted. in Ghle regard, ne pointe oul thal setcon _everrnents (ee! cleciosee that the entire budding consists = = s ce SAPS PERSP ROL Bae of seven tenements and according bo the tenant, some are vacant and in eccupation of the landlord. Me aubrnite Hh hat . those portions are suitable for alternative accor modation . ao the landiond whieh fre frie! Caurt could have taken ; notce of. Censequenty, he would. shomit. that the gresumption in law on facts is sign not. available, as: the guntulery fn edi in explanation to clause fr) of sub-sechien 2 af section 27 has é ot been conmplied. The affidavit Files} along 'with, the, petition ig net in the nature of en. affidavit 'that is. expected ¢ ar > required. It is juSL B verifying affidavit arid therefore tne pelition had bo fall. The burden was casted: on the lendiord to establish with acceptable @ avidenc "e that he requires the prem _ own use ana occupation cninus the presumption.
-. Ragarding clause G), & is urged thet evidence wae iscking and rightly held the trial Court hed rejected co thet cliute. Therefore, the totality of facts and '. Glreumétanees hefere the trial Court doas net justify order of eviction hence, the imougned order 6 unsustainable. hAARIMGALE ALIA UMHS rd GAUMLEEC ED Qi BUPA te uc pene y SP TSA PGA TARE PES PD Bet d Ge BS BPP % PSE ES Bet Le ES 8 oe fully Suppo 'ts thes case of ther
-27(2) certainly hee not o, in megation of K, img counsel for the respondent/landiord would submit that the tenant hed wrowledge of the fect that the respondent/iandlord ie:
running busines in jewelery in parcnerehip: 'eontern "uaith his sons. The nr of Ene fernily has arown as | also the, ito expand business. The sccommodat on available 'ig insulficient. Therefore, the respondent/iandlord intends to rin occupation ¢ of the tenant for utilise the abutting por ve ak axpanding Ais bu eines: whic fi is nonest and mot malaiide and. thus che s trial Court wes right im accepting the seme. She. further caferved to 'the a feet thet the tenent hac ie benefit oF enjoying | denericy for several decades. Thirdly, it e-urged thet the material evidence on record gpondentfandiorg and thus "nO it terferenc ogi eslied for in the reasoning of the trial
16. ~All these contentiong have racelved my ' Se mentored anal ideation. &t the cubset, -- nm thas the requirervent of explenetion to clause (7) to Section 3 AGP | ak PE WAY Gob Resa es RA Pilkerd Cost io referring to the cone Pact 1999 has | in ir) under section 27(2) Me crews my af Ve: tehwar Chander and Others (AIR 14 suitable accommodation meeting tne needs of the landierd as projected in the petition, The landlord's evide nce on | this point le cleer end esnvincing. OF course, 'the tris! -
is Court has proceeded convincing ow the pre to ebove, requires the premises for own use.and occupation. The tenant's endeavor to shew thst tha landlord requirement is not bonafide is net convincing:
il. red 'counsel for the "respondent/ en the" decision. of thie 'Court in the esse of reed G. Shoukath and Others va. a 'Chandraprakash (1LR 2006 MAR S 2288) to she we hat the oivigion Bench of tke Court tus of tha crovigiene of the Rent the eect of provision of cause : of the judgment wherein the Division Bench has referred te : ; the obiervation of the Apex Court in the case of Rem Dass $C 1422) to aa "held idee bese to guch cages 2 o the need of the the tr See Cou ee and. the.
- the patton stands rej "ardar of eviction certainty submitted by the warned counsel for the the ature of reculrernent. seth ere inseparable. Therefore, what is necessary to examine is the need under. the circumstances in which the parties are placed. In the for the eccommedation under the changed + ciednstesti Lé., fardlys requirement, commercial based demands and Therefore, his desire to expend his business certainly cannat be termed ais dishonest; i ean sefely | construed a¢ ressonable.. Therefore, i am satisfied that aver apply g the % dict SSTy of the BoD bave said decision bo the inelant case, is uuports tie cage of the lendiard. In the resus, 1 7 nd NG reasons foe interference in the finding o re is aired. Conseque Mowever, i i¢ seen that while ion, the trig) Court has aqranbed paring the order of eviel ume of f four months which neece modification, Uk Ae expectec, Surdenip resulting from the s to be teken note of It & ucGorer ther ¢ a EUR E eld Lees a g the peUtioner is alse engaged in similar busine pas that of the res sondent/iandlord. The learned counsel has further. contended that during the course the business, the ~ petitioner has sold iterns on credit and. recovery of such ~ # if he is evichad within.a short dues would be impossib:
period of time. Considering the fact that the petitioner ls & carrying on his business in the schedule premises which is fy, Tam setisfed # the only source of earning fer hie fers te veluttariy quit, vacate the 18 months time is grante aramises subject to payment of rent regularly as and when it accrues due will be. justifi Heneg, he 6 granbed iS =, monthe Ume from today. The titioner shall fle an affidavit in the Registry of this Court within four weeks frarn mow undertaking to vacete the premises within the period . -stinuletad without compelling the sondent/lendlord to teke any coercive steps. No costs.
Sa/> JUDGE