Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 120 (KAR)

K. G. MAHALINGAIAH v. C. R. RAJAGOPALA SETTY

2003-02-03

T.S.THAKUR

body2003
TIRATH S. THAKUR, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision petition calls in question an order passed by the II Additional District Judge at Mysore, whereby among other revisions, rent Revision No. 51 of 1994 filed by the petitioner has been dismissed and the order of eviction passed by the HRC Court upheld. ( 2 ) THE respondent-landlord is the owner of a two storied building situate in the City of Mysore consisting of 7 shops on the ground floor and residential portions on the first floor. H. R. C. Nos. 231 to 234 of 1985, 74 and 76 of 1989 were filed by the landlord against the tenants in occupation of different parts of the premises on different grounds including the ground that the building in question was in mud masonry more than 100 years old which had developed cracks requiring immediate demolition and reconstruction. The I Additional Munsiff at Mysore who tried the said cases disposed off the same by a common order dated 8-12-1993 directing vacation of the tenants in occupation of the premises for the reasons set out in the order and granting to the tenants 4 months' time to vacate. Insofar as the petitioner herein was concerned, the Trial Court passed an order of eviction under Section 21 (1) (j) of the karnataka Rent Control Act on the ground that the landlord reasonably and bona fide required the premises for purposes of demolishing the old building and reconstructing a new one in its place. While doing so, the trial Court referred to and relied upon the statements of the tenants including the petitioner herein in which they had stated that if the landlord after reconstruction was ready to give a shop to each one of them, they were ready to vacate the premises in their occupation. The trial Court in this connection observed: "r. Ws. 1 to 3 in their evidence have not seriously disputed about the reasonable and bona fide requirement of the petitioner regarding two shop premises. They have stated that if the petitioner is ready to give one shop to the respondent in H. R. C. No. 231 of 1985 and one shop to the respondent in H. R. C No. 233 of 1985, they are ready to vacate and deliver possession of the petition premises to the petitioner". They have stated that if the petitioner is ready to give one shop to the respondent in H. R. C. No. 231 of 1985 and one shop to the respondent in H. R. C No. 233 of 1985, they are ready to vacate and deliver possession of the petition premises to the petitioner". ( 3 ) THE offer made by the petitioner to vacate the premises not withstanding the order of eviction passed by the Trial Court was questioned in Rent Revision No. 51 of 1994 before II Additional District Judge at mysore. The Revisional Court upon appreciation of the material on record came to the conclusion that the landlord was a rich businessman who had sufficient means to meet the cost of the proposed reconstruction of the old building. The Court referred to the documents produced by the landlord and found that he had sufficient funds deposited in Kannikaparameshwari Co-operative Bank. It also relied upon the statement made by petitioner herein to the effect that the landlord was financially sound and had the capacity to reconstruct the building after demolition. The fact that the building in question was more than 100 years old constructed in mud masonry, the walls of the building had developed cracks and that the entire building was in a dilapidated condition was noticed by the Revisional Court and relied upon while upholding the order of eviction passed by the Court below. It also referred to the fact that the landlord had got a plan sanctioned for the proposed new building and a licence to put up the construction. Suffice it to say that upon reappraisal of the evidence on record, the Revisional Court came to the conclusion that the order of eviction made by the Trial Court against the petitioner herein was perfectly justified as the landlord bona fide required the building for demolition and reconstruction. Rent Revision No. 51 of 1994 was accordingly dismissed along with other rent revisions preferred against the orders passed by the Trial Court. The present revision petition assails the correctness of the above order. ( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner argued that in terms of Section 27 of the 1961 Act, a tenant in occupation of any premises, directed to be vacated on the ground of reconstruction had a right to seek reinduction after such reconstruction was completed. The present revision petition assails the correctness of the above order. ( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner argued that in terms of Section 27 of the 1961 Act, a tenant in occupation of any premises, directed to be vacated on the ground of reconstruction had a right to seek reinduction after such reconstruction was completed. Such a right was according to the learned Counsel meaningful only if the reconstruction of the building was directed to be completed within a specified time frame. In the absence of a time schedule for completion of the reconstruction, the landlord could defeat the tenants' right of re-entry by indefinitely delaying the process of repairs or rebuilding which would run counter to the spirit underlying the said provision. She submitted that although the trial Court had reserved liberty to the petitioner to exercise his option of reinduction under Section 27 of the Act, it could and ought to have prescribed a time frame for completion of the proposed new construction. Inasmuch as the Revisional Court also had failed to note that aspect and issue appropriate directions, it committed an error that required to be corrected in the present proceedings. ( 5 ) SECTION 27 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, inter alia provides that where a decree for eviction has been passed by a Court on the ground specified in clause (j) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 21 and the work of demolishing the premises and of the erection of a new building has been commenced by the landlord, the tenant may, within six months from the date on which he delivers vacant possession of the premises to the landlord, give notice to the landlord of his intention to occupy the new building on its completion on the conditions stipulated therein. Section 28 stipulates that on receipt of a notice from the tenant under Section 27, the landlord shall, not less than three months before the date on which the erection of the new building is likely to be completed, intimate to the tenant the date on which the said erection shall be completed and that on the said date, the tenant shall be entitled to occupy the building. It further provides that the right of reoccupation of the building shall stand extinguished if the tenant fails to do so within a period of one month from the date on which he is entitled to occupy it under sub-section (1) of Section 28. The provision also stipulates the consequences flowing from the landlord's failure without reasonable excuse to comply with the requirement of intimating to the tenant the date on which the erection shall be completed and allowing the tenant to occupy the building. ( 6 ) A careful reading of Sections 27 and 28 of the Act leaves no manner of doubt that in a case where eviction is ordered on the ground of bona fide requirement of the landlord to demolish the building and to rebuild the same, the tenant in occupation of any such building has a valuable right to reoccupy the reconstructed building on the terms and in the manner stipulated by the said provisions. It is also evident from a reading of the provision that there is no time frame prescribed for the landlord to complete the erection of the new building. That does not however imply that the landlord can be allowed to indefinitely prolong the process of reconstruction and thereby defeat the tenant's right to seek reinduction. It is implicit in the scheme of Sections 27 and 28 that the landlord is under an obligation to complete the process of construction within a reasonable period and that the Court directing the eviction of the tenant will be justified in indicating a time frame having regard to the extent and the nature of reconstruction within which the said process had to be completed. Significantly, the ostensible deficiency in the provisions of Sections 27 and 28 stands removed by the provisions of section 36 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999. Significantly, the ostensible deficiency in the provisions of Sections 27 and 28 stands removed by the provisions of section 36 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999. Section 36 of the new Act requires the Court to ascertain from the tenant whether he elects to be placed in occupation of the premises or part thereof from which he is to be evicted and if the tenant so elects, the Court is required to record the fact of the election in the order and specify therein the date on or before which he shall deliver possession so as to enable the landlord to commence the work of repair, building or rebuilding, as the case may be, and the date before which the landlord shall deliver the possession of the said premises. Sub-section (2) to Section 36 provides that if the tenant delivers possession on or before the date specified in the order, the landlord shall, on the completion of the work of repairs or building or rebuilding, place the tenant in occupation of the premises or part thereof before the date specified by the Court by an order. Sub-section (3) to section 36 envisages a situation in which the tenant has delivered the possession as per the order of the Court but the landlord fails to commence the work of repairs or rebuilding within one month of the specified date or fails to complete the work in a reasonable time or having completed the work, fails to place the tenant in occupation of the premises in accordance with sub-section (2), the Court can in any such situation on the application of the tenant order the landlord to place the tenant in occupation of the premises or part thereof or to pay to the tenant compensation not less than three times the standard rent for the premises. The new Act therefore makes a more comprehensive and effective provision for the protection and enforcement of the right of the tenant to seek reinduction. The change it is reasonable to assume is inspired by the difficulties and doubts that were encountered by tenants in enforcement of the rights under the provisions of Sections 27 and 28 of the old Act. ( 7 ) THE new Act came into force on 31-12-2001 i. e. , after the disposal of the revision by the first Revisional Court. ( 7 ) THE new Act came into force on 31-12-2001 i. e. , after the disposal of the revision by the first Revisional Court. The present revision petition was pending in this Court on the said date. In the circumstances, the same has to be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of the new act keeping in view Section 70 (2) (b) thereof. In other words, the right of the petitioner-tenant to seek reinduction has to be enforced and regulated by the provisions of Section 36 of the new Act which do not admit of any equivocation in the matter of Court's power to prescribe a time frame for the completion of the repairs building or rebuilding. ( 8 ) THE petitioner has in these proceedings elected to be placed in occupation of the premises from which he has already been evicted pursuant to the order of eviction. It is not in dispute that after the execution of the eviction order, the building has already been demolished. Reconstruction of the building had however not been commenced by the landlord as according to him no such reconstruction was possible till such time a part of the building which was in the occupation of one Shri Mohammed Ghouse was also vacated by him. The said Shri Mohammed ghouse had secured an interim order against eviction in a revision petition filed by him before the I Additional District Judge at Mysore. When this impediment was pointed out by the respondent-landlord, a direction was issued by this Court on 17-7-2002 to the I Additional District Judge at Mysore to expeditiously dispose of the rent revision filed by Shri mohammed Ghouse. It is not in dispute before me that the rent revision has since been disposed of thereby clearing the decks for the process of proposed reconstruction to begin. ( 9 ) THE only question that remains to be considered is as to what would be the reasonable period for the landlord to commence the proposed reconstruction and to deliver possession of the premises got vacated from the petitioner. Having regard to the fact that the building has already been demolished, the reconstruction process can in my opinion be commenced immediately. Having regard to the fact that the building has already been demolished, the reconstruction process can in my opinion be commenced immediately. All the same since the failure of the landlord would entail consequences in terms of sub-section (3) to Section 36 of the new Act, I direct that the reconstruction process shall be commenced on or before 28-2-2003. I further direct that the landlord shall complete the work of rebuilding and place the tenant in occupation of the premises got vacated from him on or before 1-3-2004. It is made clear that in case of any default, the tenant shall be entitled to seek redress before the Trial Court under Section 36 of the Karnataka Rent act, 1999. The revision petition is with the above directions disposed of leaving the parties to bear their own costs. --- *** --- .