Karnataka High Court
Moolchand vs Kashyap D Doshi on 1 February, 2010
Author: Ravi Malimath
Bench: Ravi Malimath
/I _ Afifisx;
_. 1 _..
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 15*' DAY OF FEBRUARY
BEFORE
THE HOE\1'BLE MR.3usTIc'E'A'RAv;_:§1AL;1MEAT_i_«1:j?'«'
HRRP.NO.4 OE.ZC:'3'1:_O'
BETWEEN:
Sri Moolchand ,
S/0 Sré Mangilai Jain, .
Aged about S5,years,_~-- '
Shop No.16,.Gr.ot.~md iFioQr,f
Oiety;EVEafi{etj;,_-VOICE.E§3o--..i'2'S, E ~
Present :\:o.523,/3}' A4.;Ve'.--ug'ee Road,
Bangalofe' as S6.0G..O2._
(By"SrT H.f.SexngHvi,.'''Aei.TTocate)
. V Ape. os hi
'- S/0' Sré' [3;e_vehd ra V. Dosh':
Aged abQiq;t'19 years,
No'.4U",_V"Doshi Nivas"
Yamuna Bai Road,
" Ma_dha'vanagar,
" '»B_a_§7.'ga|ore -- 560 001.
...PETITIONER
...RESPONDENT
__5(By Sré P.D.Surana, Advocate for C/R) Mi"
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:27--O1--2016- .
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED oN:1-2--:go-1o..,,V' _ ' This HRRP fited under section, 4-:ES(1i,;)""nof "i<éf;.Ac:,'i'i,. against the order dated 3,1.8:._?_,OO9'--_ "'-passggd ,__in HRC.No.201/2005, by the Chief'.}u.dge, cone of"__'i~3.n*i'a.i,i Causes, Bangalore, aitowirng the,petitEo,n'*%-ifiied "underfl sec.27(2)(r) & (0) of K.R.Act--...,.f"»., This HRRP after,»'having-------beenheard anci. reserved for Judgment, coming onffor .'_pronoii._re~c,_ement of orders this day, the court made the fo!Eos.wi&ng:--.*;_ _ _.The_r'es'bo*ni;ient_jfiied 'H«R:C,,,P»vetition before the Court of SmaitCausesV'JVa't-..E3an§ia,i:o'r.e'under Section 27(2)(b)(r) and (0) of the hKarn'a_t.aica" Act, 1999, seeking eviction of the,'oe~tEtioner~--_..§iVnd another. The Court below by the » ;'i'mpugri«ed.,,A:o'i'.d_er dismissed the Petition flied under Section E b*§s't,. however atiowed the Petition under Section 2u7"(.2)'{rV) '8Ls(o) of the Karnataka Rent Act and consequentty " grantieid 4 months time from the date of the order to take ""--:o'o'ssession of the same. Aggrieved by the same, H respondent No.1 has flied the present Petition.
<>é.»</"""'
2. Sri H.].Sanhgvi, learned counsel ap.peari_i'i-g;~gfo.r the petitioner, contends that the impugnedordgerisylbad it law and liable to be interfered in terms of the legal notice issued byithe..respo'n.deht'>landiordu.L vide Annexure--R12, dated O'7'i;s»€J:.7;2,OO4V"itV_isrsvtateidlltlhat the premises in occupatioin'~exce'ed--sti??:_§'c]ugare Meters. In view of the letter of the Court has no jurisdiction rromceed view of the fact that the 14 Square Meters.
He to the tenant regarding the plrlernises' premises is totally Qlifferent fromthe suit'schedu-ledpremises. He further contends that hasdisputed theérelationship of landlord and tenant and gives an appropriate finding on the same, An-_o_ ord'er_;oflleviction could be passed. He submits that no AA agdeguate opportunity has been given to him to make out A' case. rte also submits that the landlord has failed to _.}show that he requires the premises for bonafide use and occupation.
<:>{/cc"
_.4_.
3. On the other hand, Sri P.D.Surana, iearned counsel appearing for the respondent contends that there is no error committed by the triai Court that caiis for interference. He submits that he has obtained vordheirs of eviction so far as neighbouring shop is co_n'cer.ifiie.d'Vanda hence on the same footing the eviction of.the*pvetAii.tio.ner'is, justifiabie. He contends that not onh/T' substantial opportunity hass'b_eenA'gi\ren tocgt--he::tena';nt'to', make out his case; that ther'e_V'are no"'i~eg'aiV':gro:unds that calls for any"7ii7i.teVriie»re--n4Vce;v; that the entire Judgment shouici be readVVVa'spVa'w_ho:E'e a"n__c_fi"'«p'ici<ing out sentences here and thejroviiouiid rrivotrctwne tothe aid of the petitioner. VV Even.___t_hough the Petition was fiied by the ' Vr'e3.pon_Vden't_Aagainst the petitioner and the sub--tenant, the "3u'b¥ten'an_t-- has deieted and hence the proceedings were conduct.ed xoniy against the petitioner herein.
5. E have heard both the counsels.
_.5_.
6. The contention of the petitioner is thatin the notice issued to the tenant there is a clear statenje'_nt'Zith'a.t the scheduie premises is more than 14 Sq.u_a:"re.M:et~efrs. if the evidence of the iandlord he typographical error mentioned in the 'riotice,,'v5H'eV"has statefda that the schedule premises""d.,o"es not".gxceed Square Meters but is erroneo~usly'frnenti_o.nfe.d as exceeding 14 Square Meters. Hence, the :i1{ip;.tw.1 clarifies the said DOSltlOE"E.f'f"£T:.l"i€ cf_onte~ntio'n:"o:f"utheffpetitioner that the "premises Square Meters is therefore u nsustaidna bl e' acnd---i.'re3'Ve"ct'e'd
7. T-he'vsecond.Vcontention urged by the petitioner is there is aV"'d~i.s.pu'te with regard to the identification of V terms of the documentary evidence, he .'co'i'itendsf§th'at the property in question is not the same wh'ic.hti._sVthe subject matter of the Petition. He also ffddcontends that sales have been effected and the properties Vgare different. However, in the crosswexarnination it has <9/~c--1 been elicited that he is not aware of the assessment'__or_de'rs produced by him. Further, that he is not__aiixrarewiprhetta-er' it M/s.Pirigal Enterprises is itndixfiduaii'-.f'irnj=._"'o"rV "a partnership firm. He is notawairetlwhetherighe has."f'iEieVci--..L documents as a proprietor partn.e_r'."rrTherefore, this evidence of R.W.1 clea~rl_y rsignoliant about the properties in his has been fiEed.
Obviously properties have been filed' taking advantage of the thellllslcthedule premises. Hence, the con't.er.tpi%on 'th_e---._prc'perties are different is rejected. it Ivtyvas countiended that there is no relationship of Eandl'oVr'd__}~and tenant and much arguments were ad.yan_cedVt'.onl it. The contention need not detain the Court AAaTny.r:i.i:'ther in view of the specific statement made at V'D-ad.~e»2 in the cross--examination of the petitioner. He has gistated therein that he is the tenant of the Petition scheduie prernises. Therefore, when the petitioner himself admits <::>Z. Arm to the tenancy as weil as with regard to the scheduie premises, the contention urged that he is not the tenant is opposed to his very evidence. In the further,,evi;de_Vnce aiso, the stand having been reiterated cannot contend contrary to the evidence:V-.:':~i*le'n:ce, contention that there is no reliationishivplé'-of..}'and'i'ofrd:and tenant fails to the ground in View of._the made by the petitioner--tenantl'h.irnseif. V It"'vr'as_gVVcAoVnte:ndied that the iandiord has faiied to establish: 4' his i,_.bollnalfide""=reqizirement. The petitioner submitteduth,a"t'the neighbouring shop can be used by the "".Vre'spoindent.é and "hence the present premises is not iT.he}~landiord on the other hand, has specificaliy stated' thatllthe schedule premises is inadequate to start by the lldiaimond jewellery business. Therefore the orders of Q' --.h"e.v.iction and the present premises wouid be made into one .:%single shop hereinafter and it is only then that the premises would be fit to start a diamond jeweilery of,/c---
-8...
business. Reliance was placed on his experience toidothe said business. Hence, the triai Court has rigi;~t*i~*,.i.jco'h:'e_Vtoi the conclusion that the landlord requires _the_'4_:p.rern§'ses 'fort bonafide requirement. Further,§in thej;cé'os1sfexamiflnatison of the tenant he has adrnitted thatthe petit.ieliieV'r doé;s."noVt'g have any other shop excepvtiiihriiat he'-.pV'urcha:s§edH under E><.P--2, he has also hrstfloorislivnot owned by the petitioner has sufficient funds to admitted by the tenan_:tin'VhisifIevidiieonc-eitlhyat_th1emiandlord does not have any other V"alrte'rr1Vatix.re'»':.l:p're_rn.i_:s'e«S" except the Petition schedule premises and that the premises is adjacent to the one on iwV'hiich:,,,'i;'he'l'connected HRC Petition was fiied. He has also fn.e.1~~has no objection to the landlord doing the di'a__rno_nd jewleiiery business. For all the evidence of the AAtenant,.':'and coupled with the evidence of the Eandiord it
--,,V'c-ieairiy shows that the landlord has estabiished his case for l .. tithe bonafide requirement of the premises. The trial Court while considering the evidence and the contentions has Q?/fir' rightiy come to the conciusion that the iandiord requires the premises to start his own business. I find noperror committed by the trial Court in aiiowing the Petitions:'f--._:*-_'
10. The Petition was fiied i_n..th_e ye_a.r"'2GiCi;v§.""'D'_ujrin.g"u the pendency of the proceedings certain impugned orders inthe .H_RCVAP:et'iti.ori and-it had therefore fiied petitions b.e§ore't.he r~io'n'--b,i_e High Court of Karnataka on twgit'/.§CyCas.i9f.i,s; '4'I'tVfjis9é'submitted by the iearned co_'uhiseVi 't--hVe"~«..res_pcndent that approaching the High Court on was with a soie reason to deia-,'.,tyhe 'eviction pirocieedings. It is further contended . thvatkthe matvtiers pertaining to the City of Bangaiore "an'r~.a$rerage take about 1 '/2 years for disposai. Hie-wevvei=,'_Vi'i4ntithe instant case, it has taken more than S years. «acid it is therefore pieaded that no further leniency shown to the tenant. In view of the Contentions raised, ., wouid be just and appropriate if the time to vacate is
-19..
extended by a further period of 3 months from thedate of expiry of the time granted by the triai Court.__.«§V_V"* .2» For the aforesaid reasons,_th.e__Peti_--tEo'n' Vc'_1'eVvoi_d' of merits is rejected. The time to'e.va:_'at~e and "lwa'ndo$[ierV':'t7-he schedule premises is furthe'r__e><tendevd iby _ai";V3vei<i._od--..of--~ithree.i' months from the exp_iry of t;_h'_eVVV:-"1:.i_§"T'l€.v granted_'AbVyEthe court below which would theniflexpiire{_bf/uthé .e'nd_0f March 2010.