Mr Joseph D Souza vs Mrs M D Almeida on 2 November, 2010

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Mr Joseph D Souza vs Mrs M D Almeida on 2 November, 2010

Bench: Jawad Rahim

IN THE HEGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

BETWEEN:

ANS :

 _gaff':-:RiV"e,s.GuRuaATH, Am;.,;:

5

5' 5

5'2,

'x.
ix/2,...

DATED THIS THE 2*" DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2010

BEFORE

THE H{}N'BLE MR. JUS"§""ICE JAWAD RAHIl§?----. V '_ '.j'  

HRRP N0. 189 OF 2010

MRJOSEPH D'SOUZA,
s/0 I.D'SC)UZA,  _
AGE9 ABOUT 62 YEARS,  %- % V'  ~
No.14, E FLOOR, 137" 'A' M'*A:N RG15\S~,.. 
17"" 'A' CROSS, M;:.LLEsw;x.RAVM;-».VL 
BANGALORE W S60__O'Q3   ._ , 
   PETITIONER
(BY SR1 3OSE SEBASTIAN 'A{}v..';««.F:;.C§ %_ 
M/S JOSESEBASSTIAN. .As_s;QC:A.7Es)

  "  
W/O LTEVS1LVERE3TE{)_R E)"ALMEIDA,
AGED Aaomf'-SL3 >rEAR:~:,' '
REs:1:>zrx;G 'AT "C.Y'R«It.'GULBAO,
27/1,"3_,E<.FAR_M 'QUBALSIPALAYA,

,£2.,vxCO:;L.Ec5EV POST KENGERI,
 =ii3AN'GALORE~ r+_.5iTSO 60

,..RESPONDEN"§"

 V 'TH:;$ HRR? mag W8 46(1) 09 KR ACT; AGAMST THE
-LJ' '<__"'-€§RDER.§>'A"FED: 2?»§3:2m..@ pmgm N m: masazzeeg
  mg mg G?' ma Ix aD@:":f:a:x:aL EENISR am: imsa

%T ':@:;g:? Q?' $§v2,a:.L mzjggg, §~"§E§'=='i;EER; M,s,c*:"»~?, a;2§=:<;§;0§.Eg
  A';,mw:m@ THE ?ETE"§"EC2§'~§ mm %;..:;s 31(1) (af: we
  _.S_ECT£Q§'~x£ 2?{2}{r) £2}? KR Ac:



THIS PETITION 18 COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, THE COURT MAUE THE FOLLCéW§§\1G:~

ORDER

Tenant: is in revision against the erder ef eviction eated 217~O3~2£)1Oi:': HRC No.35/2009.

2. Head the learned ceunset for petitigreetVVw.§,'__f?eee~nt aw respondent.

3. The écontextuai facts A' The respondent initieiied-evictihra__ prQC'ee'd§Vr§gs '°again's~t' the petétioneraunder Section--~3t{'1)'{--;?s} artci"S;?ect.%'€t)h 27(2)(r) ef the Karnatai<a'%Rera't' 'the Act') on the pieeathat'_Aéi'2eV_..isV ci_ti;2eh aged 85 years and widow. She he={§_:é>:3_ Esse_e:§L;'V.?es:§d:c'e she had to ieave the CG%3ﬁtE"';/ to be:.§--e.e§§ed"4l22ftVer~»$3x h'eré"'::e¥at§ves. Having etayed abroad she «Vfé;-;*i-§f:'éri=:**:',;3e"s:.s:«éAb§e eéééittreturned ta the eeentry is We in the V§;ereh1.,é:§e.$"eV§"hVe~t ewe, During the peried we was tempereriéy e2ra«feyv_.f:%e:§éf%..' Ehdéa gee me eéieweé reseeeéent te ecazuey ihe AA ereaﬁééeee ﬁe eeestéeht She had reeeeetee the eetétéeeez" te A' "zaeéietef whéeéé he es mi {Lie eeneeeaeet te 2*-ghéee she ﬂee taken eheiter in e §,i€2T':§C%§'E§"y' aeeeremeéatéen %e be: eieizefe heuseg where the accemmeﬁatéem ée inedeetsete.

"""~\.., ' ......

.;

6' M' 4.

mi by}

4. She described the petitiener as Tenant on menthiy rent of R5350/-- and a person who has committed breach of terms of tenancy. According to her without her consent, Concurrence or pernnissien he has suifiet the scheduie premises and is making tmiawfui gairz.~~~--Héawr.__'r'eQLi'est and demands have faiied necessitating é5$nan'e.e 'df:'~netice-«Ste» hire. Though he received netizce,éent'e$fasi»x{Le"VureVeiy it. without complying with the de_mantE----sr"r.

5. She further aver'i*Se.z_VjiM' bt3iidi'r1~g'A_VV:isV': inigdéiapiciated corrditien requiring repeir, whéehu cannot be carriedi--rorit'~Vi_rr§:it:if:g>r;.rt'-evi:ct§«ng..,.t.he Tenant. Thus, inveked proviisioras and Section 2.7(2)(r) of the Karnataikaé .ReVnt:V' ;,,E3>. .."?etitie'n'er M Tenant resisted the rjroceedéngs reseendenfs right; are and rnterest arid ee_ny:n~g rei-etienehre cs? Landiere ene "Eenarrt. in this A rege7:<r§_Aé1'ne averreé that he was ineécted in the sceeeeée 'ere-rnéeee ee e ?enerrt eg: see Srrrr. iéerrzetn in tee trees' ir§"?2 fen rnentnéy rent ef §?;$.1S@;*'~ arse he re eezséne rents reguiariy. After severei years Smt. Kematr: énstrected him .L:.

to deposit rents in the acceeht of one Mrsﬁimeida (respondent herein) which he compiied withdut accepting the Mrs. Aimeida as Landiord. Accerding to him, he is Tenant under Smt, Kamath and has deposited r'e:3t___itt the account of Mrs. Almeida, the respondent here:§h;:.f"L:et"her instructions which shall not create jural re1:at§oh'S.h'E"p:.'_'"He»4_ referred to fiiéng of as I\Eo.644S/-2'O'O--f:3. 'by--'_4'hEt1i7é'j'te' ;§Vtote.ctt'V.hEe' ; eessessien against aélegee threatef d--ieec}ee'e<fe§~o,;*:... " T

7. Based on the"--ve4t:h=.t;ateriV.aE»tp*:et>_oe'E't»§4dti' 'in the pieadings the; tearheti~.__tréa1;"}'ud§eVV"aA!.1_owe'd'"patties to tead evidence.

8. :"E3;.1r§'VnL;;V ptticeedings the Tenant took up anether conterttiewerw-A thatIf<a'n'-..__:"etterhative and mere seitabie accammodhatiereteties?'-beteeme avaiiaeie to the respondent by _07t2e' Tené'nt ---- Retéeaeath vacated the same: He further eee%'tef'é..eV.t"tie't.tine Mr.;-Mwye Dﬁeuza tried te dieeeeseee hsre. ta-a..;_t %§_e~e.e.%ag2§ht eteteetéee egeiest sect: éitegeé ecte, tee eise _ refeznted te GS §\§et$25?/2§@§ ﬂied be Reeeemath ene ef the A' "é".e.téent eeeéeeg ee eteer te eretect his eeeeeeeéen, if

9. The parties have iead evidence, which the iearrsed triai Judge applied and heid respondent has proved the case and aiiowed the petitien.

10. The Iearned cdunsei for petEt§o_r§:éé't"--«§L_*;-.f[ds.é5:z"a*ji:

would submit that provisions of Segttion was not avaiiabie to the petitiondr be-caiJs4e,.S;hdeV''héd:'%tQs't:;§";ér '' husband 60 years ago .»and_ nd'c, E'n Vttsed Therefore, prdvisions of Sectidh.,:31.(1)(d)' the was not axsaiiabie. He would'-4._§1'Jbni_Et ;Vthd'r--.._C=..td'erf of eviction under Sectien 31(1)(a} of theA:t:t'-is't:An:te;'td'bféV;~i._*--

11. dviétion granted under Sectidn hdéubmits that triai Court has faded Ate' r1'dt%a:e,th§--é{' :i1T§;>"::..--;:é't:~5s'i:ante clause in 5t:b~Sectid:; (3.) of Se<:tE.g;3 2*?" thé': A£:t,";é§hich prohibits the may of eviction Ab't3.§Figi..,'g;:as?t::.ed univééétthe grounds of own use and eccupatiw H5uVft:.:%:§"§f.;stét;stiantiated. In this tegard he isubméts that é*£:4$§<}vt:~a"§é_5id':At:ad ﬁenefét 0? gettéttg zxacarzt §{}S$€S3SE$i'§ <2? twe _ ddtt.§L2§f:é§ ér: the ground tied?' add one $§E'§Z§§f1 its the that ﬂees:

tétgt tiddr vaiarét _9§SS€SE3%{}r"s Ea Eat mat ta we __3Rangaswamyt He has aim vaaated the memiseg Ss:}Gi"é bﬁfﬂfﬁ petétédn was filed and the Landédrd £3 keeging vacazit fa nessessien. He submits that portion occupieé by Ranganatn also vacant and Landlord is using that portion.

12. The last contention is mereiy invoking Section 27(2)(r) of the Act is not enough to grant of eviction'-,order, uniess Landlord proves she has no a!tern_at_e,V.t'sen§taF}te accommodation avaiiabte to her. He reiies dectisson' of the Apex Court in the case of"k:N'.'ANA.NTi~WiAJA"t§U§'TA 7. V vs o.v.usHA VIJAYKUMAR rje{_)orte(£.. in'~200?.:A'I§"{ s<:\%w\7'42'7;.,L

13. Keeping in mind tvizvnzat is utg.et§"b'y hoth sides, I have examined the rec'o:ds _r$na_d:e' 'ay.e:t'i'i~a.bte. ' 14, The first co_n'teVnt'i'_on:» t!*1-at'~e_'ctE.'on under Section 31(1j.,(a)'« ofvthef-».§tcotc,:iVse.u:_u"nt'enabie, needs to be discounted because"p4to\:isViVo.n's¥'.ofSection 31(1)(a) of the Act does not Enetotporate in"'*i-tsetﬂsgny restriction. The provtsicsn has to be ' Vlteazi in'~its en_tirety. The words useo in Section 3:(1)(a) of nctu-".'g::--.ree:=.'ﬁteméses Eet ms ties" hzzsbann er by Ezerseif', Thteteﬁteg it cannot be sate that oniy if women és a wééonsee 2 AA tecenttg sne cenié tsetse the beneﬁt of tne itct, Tnés ground its tejecteo, 'M. "L W

15. Even if we hold that grounds under Settion 31(1)(a) of the Act :5 not avaiiabke to her it COU1d'_.¥b\?_ seen that she has érwoived provisions of Section tidtﬂvvfije Act. The evidence has estaoiished that and a widow. She has iost her;'hoV3tja'r}d"'.eU"yheer5.o'gVoV'end 7. had to Seave country as there waS---Aoo». persooto takecaeer Her evidence is steer thet""teh7e retoVme"tir.to .':}f4§'3€ country recentiy and presentéxﬁs Iiv_i'hg_EVAn'- h_e.{'s.i«ster's hotrrse.

16. .Teoeh't's* there is tack of jural retatio§t*:s__hi::.g}j::.r'_r; for simpte reason that to him is his Landlord, has irastrivrrsicted in the account of respondent, which 'h'e'_ r:esVV"b'ee'h" for several years. Therefore, oiea;'garritvhforward by him that there is ho jurai r V;"reIVat.§Vor*:s%ﬁ.tr}*-.is yet another attemet to oeoy the iegitrmete = Aright'ofﬁfze';rVesooooer'st. " However; the resooeeeot séreié have rzo o%§f%ctr§ty '~.,é_o_f.-'oroarirrg trer eeee ee tee reeeoooeot its her etooeeee hoe adrortted rrmg:

"1 do not know whether tenant Ramahath has vacated the property, which is in occepatéop to the petitioner. I do not know that tenant Ramanath has not at aii handed over the vacant possessien of the property, which is in his possession to the petitioner. I do not know:

petitioner has published paper pubticaE?_i'o'hC."3' aiieging that tenant Ramanath has cui.t_i,xfet.ed.A_i.:"

habit to create huisahce ih"'r'eSpe§:t--.' of _the in vacation the property. I do-énontii<how~.t'he're_VV is no reiatiohship betweemthepeititipnepr"a:h.rj__ Mr. Aiwén D'Souza. I do Vtiwere-'sis connection in !'EfSD'"€€,:t of;*theA siehedelye property to Mr. .'i'to.':i;3p:n'ot true to suggest that, theV..pet.itiVoh'--Asichekiitiipeiilproperty, which iss_"s:t'f§;;«:.itec1:1--_iriithe""fi.rst"fE.oor, is most su:itabteA"'ffé,;Vr__t:i3*ze "occupation of the petz:i<§ner..:t«"i;_sV_?:m:é--..zit:at I had not tried to searchhew house"et._"..%v§aiieshwaram. .. .. .." Tefizsing into cohsieeration aii the atteeeihg iiire':§--r;f:et'a%€;:.es':'«:3? the page E em eatiefieo that the _ resp€;:'eee%s.t'v§té"ao estahéiehee hes' ease ehé need is gehuéhe .oer::£e_.ergVe'et ape? she reeeéree preméssee Eh the eeeupetioh pf _ the'"p'etitieher fps: her exam use ape oeeepetéeet She £3 eige "ehtétied te benefit eeoer the provésiphs of Sectiee 31i{1}{a:i of the Act being a widow and aiso senior citizen. Farther, E 9 am satisfied that she had estabiished tser ease for own use and occupation under the provisierzs of Section 2"7(2)(a) of the Act atso. ﬂeece, the order impugned needs no interference, which is confirmed.

19. However; at this juncture the ieatrjéd'tit:t:;§3e,e§_"€r;r petitioner submits that time granted to h.i-re ev>§;3«iafedL:," hes needs to be given reasehabie tirade. 4'La.e.dt'erdvV'r--iQw.es_?er,"=- opposed an these contentions, BuVteee'i1sEderé"t;g éitttiatiien in which both the parties er'e.';piaVeeda,"Estate eersuaded to accept request of th-e."j%'-pet;i_tioeet'~-teegrant one years time. Petitioner ~ Tenant tQ...x/.e_cete..ti§_e within stipuiated perid-cf'"'sL1,k§}'eet.;'teVvpagirnehit"ef...rents reguiarly. In Case of defaL;;;i_t consecutive period of two monthsiiiithxeriv. benefit '0'§:t'hEs order shaii stands revoked. 2{if :?e'tit.,§0nés déeeeesed ef in terms at this erder. eeg-~ Eeeee

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court