Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 865 (KAR)

K. M. NANJAPPA v. N. NAGARAJ

2001-11-30

K.SREEDHAR RAO

body2001
( 1 ) ). THE revision is filed against the order passed by the District Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore in RRP No. 5 of 1999. The petitioner is the tenant. The respondent/landlord made an application for eviction of the petitioner from the petition premises situated at kanakapura under Sections 21 (l) (c), (h), (i), (o) and 21-C of the KRC act. The grounds under 21 (l) (c), (h), (i) and (o) are given up. Only ground under Section 21-C is urged for securing eviction. ( 2 ) IT was the case of the petitioner that he was employed in karnataka Public Service Commission at Bangalore and that he retired from service on 31-3-1989. After his retirement the landlord/respondent submitted that he wants to go to Kanakapura and peacefully reside in the petition premises at Kanakapura. The Trial Court allowed the eviction under Section 21-C of the KRC Act. In revision District Judge also confirmed the order under Section 21-C of the KRC Act. Being aggrieved, the present revision is filed. ( 3 ) SRI R. B. Sadashivappa appearing for the petitioner relied on the ruling of this Court in C. Somashekar v K. R. Chokkalinga Raju, at paras 7 and 8 it is held thus: "7. The object and reason for introducing Section 21-C is found in the statement of objects and reasons, in the Amendment Bill it reads thus:"the Karnataka State Government Employees Association, the Karnataka State Secondary Teachers Association and the karnataka State Pensioners Association have represented that the retired Government servants and their family members are facing difficulties in getting possession of their houses back from their tenants after their retirement or on death under the existing provisions of the Rent Control Act. Therefore, they have requested to amend the Karnataka rent Control Act, 1961 providing for summary termination of the tenancy of houses owned by Government servants or by members of their families when they are required for self-occupation on retirement from service or death. It is necessary that the Government servants who have put in long years of service should be enabled to lead peaceful life in their own houses after retirement by making the case of ex-servicemen and their families. Hence the process of securing possession easier and quicker as in Bill". 8. It is manifest that summary eviction is intended for"self-OCCUPATION after retirement or death". Hence the process of securing possession easier and quicker as in Bill". 8. It is manifest that summary eviction is intended for"self-OCCUPATION after retirement or death". It is implicit that the retired official, invoking this provision, must have been in occupation of premises other than his own. To take benefit of Section 21-C two conditions are mandatory. Firstly, he should be a retired Government servant and secondly, "he does not possess any other suitable premises in the local area where he or the members of his family can reside". (emphasis supplied) the employment of word "possess" is not without significance. The dictionary meaning of the word "possesses" is "to occupy in person; to have as occupant; to inhabit". (vide Webster's Dictionary) "to inhabit or hold as owner, to have, to seize, to control; to be master of. (vide Chamber's 20th Century Dictionary)". ( 4 ) IT is the contention of Sri R. B. Sadashivappa that the provisions of section 21-C do not apply since the petitioner" throughout his service was residing at Bangalore. He owns residence at Bangalore in vijayanagar and has been residing there with his family for over 3 decades. The contention that the landlord wants to reside at Kanakapura and take up legal practice and would attend agricultural activities are all untenable contentions. In this regard he referred to the material to show that he has sold away the agricultural lands owned at Kanakapura and also that in some of the cases he has given no objection for transfer of vakalath. On this material it was strenuously contended that the ground under Section 21-C would not come into play and if at all the petitioner is entitled he has to make out the ground under Section 21 (l) (h) by establishing the requirement as bona fide and reasonable. ( 5 ) AFTER going through the judgment of the Trial Court and first revisional Court it is evidently established that the landlord/respondent was employed in Government service and retired from the service in the year 1989. It is also not in dispute that the respondent/landlord owns a house in Vijayanagar at Bangalore and residing there. It is also in the evidence of landlord that he has enrolled himself as a member of the kanakapura Bar Association. It is also not in dispute that the respondent/landlord owns a house in Vijayanagar at Bangalore and residing there. It is also in the evidence of landlord that he has enrolled himself as a member of the kanakapura Bar Association. It is the case of the landlord that after his retirement he wants to reside at Kanakapura in the petition premises belonging to him. It is also in the evidence that the landlord does not own any other premises in Kanakapura apart from the petition premises. ( 6 ) IN the light of the material evidence narrated above, it becomes explicit that prime facie, the ground under Section 21-C of the KRC Act are made out for seeking eviction. With regard to the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the respondent/landlord is residing in his premises at Vijayanagar does not appear to be a tenable contention to defeat the claim for eviction under Section 21-C of the KRC Act. The provisions of which are reproduced hereunder for convenient reference:"21-C. Special provision for recovery of possession of premises by the retired Government servants or a member of the family of the deceased retired Government servant. The provisions of which are reproduced hereunder for convenient reference:"21-C. Special provision for recovery of possession of premises by the retired Government servants or a member of the family of the deceased retired Government servant. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act (a) a landlord, being a person who was appointed to a public service or post in connection with the affairs of the State of Karnataka (hereinafter referred to as the 'government servant') and is duly retired (which term shall include premature retirement) shall be entitled to recover possession of any premises on the ground that the premises is bona fide required by him for occupation by himself or any member of his family and the Court shall pass a decree for eviction on such ground if the landlord at the hearing of the suit, produces a certificate signed by the Controlling Officer to the effect that (i) the landlord is person who was appointed to a public service or post in connection with the affairs of the State of karnataka and is now a retired Government servant; (ii) he does not possess any other suitable premises in the local area where he or the members of his family can reside; (b) where a person who was appointed to a public service or post in connection with the affairs of the State of Karnataka dies within five years of his retirement, his widow who is or becomes a landlord of any premises which belonged to him shall be entitled to recover possession of such premises on the ground that the accommodation is bona fide required by herself or any member of her family and the Court shall pass a decree for eviction on such ground, if such widow at the hearing of the suit, produces a certificate signed by the Controlling Officer to the effect that (i) she is the widow of a deceased Government servant as aforesaid; (ii) she does not possess any other suitable premises in the local area where she or the members of her family can reside". Explanation. Explanation. For the purposes of this sub-section "controlling officer" means the officer of the State Government drawing the salary of the retired or deceased Government servant immediately before his retirement or death, as the case may be, and where the retired or deceased Government servant was drawing his salary himself, his successor in office or where the drawing officer is not an officer of the State Government, the State Government. (2) For the purpose of this section, any certificate referred to in sub-section (1), shall be conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein". ( 7 ) A close reading of the provisions of Section 21-C clearly indicate that a person is entitled to claim eviction under Section 21-C if he does not possess any other suitable premises in the local area where he or his family members can reside. The landlord while serving at Bangalore in government service was residing at Bangalore. May be that he owned a house at Bangalore for his residence. But that factor does not however, come in the way for the respondent to invoke the provisions of Section 21-C of the KRC Act to seek eviction. Evidently at Kanakapura he does not own any other premises. The contention of Sri R. B. Sadashivappa that the landlord failed to establish that he own lands and that he is actively practising at Kanakapura may not be a material factor for consideration under Section 21-C. Those considerations may hold good for scrutiny under Section 21 (h) of the KRC Act to appreciate the requirement of the landlord as being bona fide and reasonable. ( 8 ) IN order to obtain eviction under Section 21-C the landlord has to show that he was in public service and after his retirement from public service he wants his premises for his residence and that he does not possess any other suitable premises in the local area where he or member of his family can reside. In the decision in C. Somashekar's case, supra, the facts reveal that in the same local area the landlord who was residing in a portion of the premises and sought eviction of the tenant living in the other portion by invoking Section 21-C of the KRC Act. In the decision in C. Somashekar's case, supra, the facts reveal that in the same local area the landlord who was residing in a portion of the premises and sought eviction of the tenant living in the other portion by invoking Section 21-C of the KRC Act. In the context of the said facts it was held that Section 21-C would not apply and the grounds under Section 21 (h) have to be made out to show that the landlord's need of additional accommodation. But in the instant case the landlord does not have any other premises of his own apart from the petition premises at Kanakapura, owning a house at Bangalore is a different local area. Sri R. B. Sadashivappa relied on the ruling of the Supreme Court in Smt. Kanta God v P. Pathak and Others. At last lines of para 9 the following observations are made:". . . . . . THE right is exhausted thereby and is not available for continual applications for eviction against all other tenants holding under him. This is made clear by the proviso which makes plain that the section shall not be construed as conferring a right on a landlord owning two or more dwelling-houses to recover possession of more than one dwelling-house". ( 9 ) ON carefully going through the said observation I find the decision and the ratio laid down has no application to the facts of the case. For the reason that the said ratio becomes applicable only within the local area when the landlord owns two or more premises he is not entitled to secure eviction of the premises under Section 25-B which appears to be in pari materia with Section 21-C of the KRC Act. The facts of the case totally stand on different footing. Sufficient material is produced by the landlord to show that after retirement from public service he wants to reside at Kanakapura and apart from the petition premises he does not own any other premises for his residence. The landlord has also become the member of the Bar at Kanakapura. The facts of the case totally stand on different footing. Sufficient material is produced by the landlord to show that after retirement from public service he wants to reside at Kanakapura and apart from the petition premises he does not own any other premises for his residence. The landlord has also become the member of the Bar at Kanakapura. Irrespective of the extent of volume and lucrative aspects of legal practice he has established that he has become a member of the Kanakapura Bar Association, which clearly establishes that he wants to reside at Kanakapura and his residence at bangalore has no bearing on the claim of the landlord to seek eviction under Section 21-C of the KRC Act. In that view of the matter I do not find any merit in the revision to interfere with the eviction order granted by the Courts below. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed. ( 10 ) THE Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an old man aged about 80 years and sympathetically some reasonable time be granted to him for vacating the premises. Taking into consideration the submissions made at the Bar I find that grant of one year time would be reasonable for the petitioner to vacate. Accordingly, the petitioner is granted time to vacate the premises till 1st January, 2003. --- *** --- .