Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 494 (KAR)

J. S. Ramkumar v. Raja Shivramaiah Setty

2014-04-25

MOHAN M.SHANTANAGOUDAR

body2014
ORDER Respondent herein is the owner of the premises in question, of which the petitioner herein is the tenant. The owner is a Dharmashala Trust, a nonprofit making organization meant to cater to the needs of the poor people of different communities. Thus, the owner, in order to expand the utility of the Choultry for ensuring enhanced income to it from the Choultry, issued notice to its tenants including the petitioner herein as required under the Transfer of Properties Act for vacating the premises. Despite service of notice, the petitioner did not vacate the premises. It is relevant to note that all the other tenants have already vacated the premises, in order to enable the respondent herein to expand the utilization of Choultry and in order to see that the respondent gets higher income. It is also relevant to note that as the respondent is a charitable institution, the provisions of Karnataka Rent Act are not applicable. 2. Petitioner herein is occupying a shop having 242 feet of plinth area as a tenant. According to him, he is paying monthly rent of Rs.3,000/- and he is running a grocery shop. He has occupied the premises since more than two decades and since it is his only avocation. He has opposed the Small Cause suit for ejectment. 3. Undisputedly, the notice of eviction was issued as per law. Since the respondent is the owner of the premises and as it needs the premises in question for its use and occupation in order to see that the premises in question is better utilized for the purpose of fulfilling the object for which the trust is created, filed the suit for ejectment. The main premises is used as Kalyana Mantapa which has got a row of shops. The owner respondent herein wants to demolish the row of shops in order to provide parking facility to the persons who come and use Kalyana Mantapa. Since Bangalore City has grown many folds since 20 years, it is but natural for the Trust to modify the said Kalyana Mantapa in accordance with modern needs. The trust also substantiates that to run the Kalyana Mantapa, enough parking facility and hygienic kitchen, etc., are the essential requirements. Be that as it may, in my considered opinion, the Court below on evaluation of the material record has rightly concluded that the suit be decreed. The trust also substantiates that to run the Kalyana Mantapa, enough parking facility and hygienic kitchen, etc., are the essential requirements. Be that as it may, in my considered opinion, the Court below on evaluation of the material record has rightly concluded that the suit be decreed. Even on reappreciation of the material on record, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the conclusion reached by the Court below. 4. At this stage, learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner may be granted three years’ time to vacate the premises in question. Per contra, Sri Shivakumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that at the most the petitioner may be granted six months’ time, inasmuch as the respondent needs the premises urgently. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and in order to see that the respondent also finds an alternative place, the interest of justice will be met if the petitioner is granted time to vacate the premises in question up to the end of April, 2015. Petition stands dismissed. Petitioner is granted time to vacate the premises in question up to the end of April, 2015, subject to payment of rents regularly.