Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 791 (KAR)

ANWAR v. T. R. REVANNA

2001-10-16

K.SREEDHAR RAO

body2001
K. SREEDHAR RAO, J. ( 1 ) THE revision filed against the order passed by the II Additional Munsiff (Civil Judge, Junior Division), Tumkur, in HRC No. 34 of 1987 and the order passed by the II Additional District Judge, Tumkur, in RR No. 8 of 1992. ( 2 ) THE petitioner is the tenant. The respondent-landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenants under Section 21 (1) (a), (h), (i), (j) and (p) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961. ( 3 ) THE Trial Court, on the consideration of the oral and documentary evidence allowed the petition under Section 21 (l) (p) of the Act and dismissed the petition filed on the other grounds. The first Revisional court confirmed the order of eviction under Section 21 (1) (p) of the Act and dismissed the revision of the tenant. Being aggrieved, the present revision is filed. ( 4 ) ON going through the impugned judgment and the evidence discussed therein, it is successfully established by the landlord that the tenant is owning an alternative premises very near to the petition premises. The admission of this fact is found in the reply given to the notice in the first instance before the proceedings are initiated. The first Revisional court has extracted the averments made in the reply notice which makes a clear admission about owning of a shop nearby. However, it is contended that the said premises is used only as a godown to store spare parts and the petition premises does not have sufficient space. In evidence, the tenant comes out with, inconsistent version that his wife is carrying on agency business. Both the Trial Court and the first Revisional court finds from Ex. P. 2, the extract of the tax demand register of the municipality that the alternative premises is owned by the tenant and it stands in his name in the Corporation records and the dimension of the said premises is about 15' x 16' whereas the petition premises measures 10' x 14'. In the light of the said material, both the Courts have concurrently found that the landlord has made out a case of eviction under Section 21 (l) (p) of the Act holding that the tenant is owning an alternative premises. ( 5 ) THE Counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that exceptthe material in Ex. In the light of the said material, both the Courts have concurrently found that the landlord has made out a case of eviction under Section 21 (l) (p) of the Act holding that the tenant is owning an alternative premises. ( 5 ) THE Counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that exceptthe material in Ex. P. 2, there is no other convincing or documentary evidence to show that the tenant is the owner of the said premises. I am unable to agree with the contention. After all, the landlord by placing sufficient material has established that the tenant owns alternative premises and sufficient documentary evidence is also placed, thereby the burden of proof on the landlord is substantially discharged. It is upto the tenant in order to controvert the said material to have established by contra-material to show that the building is not owned by him and that he is not in possession and also that it is not suitable for his business. The prima facie material produced by the landlord clearly establishes that tenant owns a suitable premises. Under the circumstances, I do not find any merit in the contention that the findings of the Trial Court and the first Revisional Court is wrong and untenable. ( 6 ) THE Counsel for the petitioner further contended that before the first Revisional Court, an application is made to produce certain documents to show that the properties owned by tenant is under acquisition. The Court has allowed the application, the additional documents are received on record. The Counsel for the petitioner contended that in view of the intended acquisition, the request for eviction should not be granted. I do not find any merit in the contention. The initiation of proceedings for acquisition is not a ground to defeat the claim of eviction under Section 21 (1) (p) of the Act. That apart whenever after coming into force of the provisions of Section 21 (1) (p) when a tenant owns, acquires or builds any suitable premises he becomes liable for eviction, Any subsequent changed circumstance like proposed acquisition would not take away the right of the landlord to seek eviction under Section 21 (1) (p) of the Act. Therefore, in the circumstances, the revision is dismissed. The tenant is granted three months' time to vacate. --- *** --- .