Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1242 (KAR)

Mahaveer Chand v. B. G. Sathyendranath

2015-11-16

B.S.PATIL

body2015
ORDER : B.S. Patil, J. 1. This revision petition is filed challenging the order of eviction dated 28-9-2015 passed by the Court below in HRC No. 16 of 2015. Petitioner is the tenant. Respondents 1 and 2 instituted the eviction proceedings under Section 27(2)(h) and 27(2)(r) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, seeking eviction of the revision petitioner. It was contended by the landlords that they were the absolute owners of the property bearing No. 4, Sunkalpet Main Road, Bengaluru-2, having succeeded to the same from their father late Gundaiah. They further contended that the schedule premises measured 10' x 10' and the same was let out to the father of the respondent one Rikab Chand by the father of the petitioners and after the death of Rikab Chand, respondent/revision petitioner continued as tenant under the petitioners on the monthly rent of Rs. 500/-. 2. They urged that even the amount of Rs. 500/- per month was not paid regularly. It was also contended that petitioners had three daughters i.e., 1st petitioner was having two daughters and 2nd petitioner was having one daughter and the elder daughter of the 1st petitioner was married and was living separately with her husband and the 2nd daughter was residing along with the petitioners; that the 2nd petitioner's daughter was also married and was living separately with her husband. They contended that in the residential premises situated behind the schedule premises, although petitioners along with their respective wives were residing because the said premises was insufficient for them, they decided to utilise the schedule premises as a room. Thus, they sought for eviction of the revision petitioner. Petitioners also filed a separate affidavit narrating their requirement for personal use of the schedule premises. 3. Respondent contested the claim contending inter alia that petition premises was more than 14 sq. mtrs. and was actually 160 sq. fts. and hence, HRC Court had no jurisdiction to try the matter. The allegation that tenant was in arrears of rent of Rs. 9,000/- was refuted as false and baseless. 4. On behalf of the petitioners, 2nd petitioner examined himself as P.W. 1 and Exs. P. 1 to P. 8 were produced and marked. For the respondent-tenant himself got examined as R.W. 1. No documents were produced by him. 5. The allegation that tenant was in arrears of rent of Rs. 9,000/- was refuted as false and baseless. 4. On behalf of the petitioners, 2nd petitioner examined himself as P.W. 1 and Exs. P. 1 to P. 8 were produced and marked. For the respondent-tenant himself got examined as R.W. 1. No documents were produced by him. 5. The Court below has accepted the claim of the landlords regarding non-payment of rent regularly and also the case made out for bona fide requirement of the premises by the landlords. It has repelled the contention of the tenant that Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition as the schedule premises measured 14 sq. mtrs. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision petition is filed. 6. The main contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is, that the Court below has committed an error in holding that the premises measured 10' x 10' because the said aspect had been indeed admitted by R.W. 1-tenant in his examination-in-chief. It is his next contention that although no case was made out for the bona fide need and requirement of the landlord for self-occupation, the Court below has erroneously allowed the eviction petition directing eviction. He is also critical of the findings recorded with regard to arrears of rent due and payable by the tenant revision petitioner and the order of eviction passed even on that basis though it was not one of the grounds urged. 7. Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, I find that although it was raised as a specific defence by the respondent in his objection that the suit premises measured more than 14 sq. mtrs., no material was placed in support of the defence taken. Indeed, in the examination-in-chief, R.W. 1 has at one stage stated that measurement of the shop premises was 10' x 10', but at another stage, he asserts that this measurement was incorrect. It is in this background, the Court below has held that tenant-respondent was not sure about the measurement and did not produce any material to substantiate his claim that the petition property measured more than 14 sq. mtrs. 8. I do not find any illegality in the findings recorded. In fact, I have perused the examination-in-chief of R.W. 1. It is in this background, the Court below has held that tenant-respondent was not sure about the measurement and did not produce any material to substantiate his claim that the petition property measured more than 14 sq. mtrs. 8. I do not find any illegality in the findings recorded. In fact, I have perused the examination-in-chief of R.W. 1. The findings recorded by the Court below is correct having regard to the statement made on oath by R.W. 1 in paragraph 8. It was for the revision petitioner-tenant to substantiate his defence regarding lack of jurisdiction in the HRC Court by producing any acceptable material as regards the actual measurement of the property. In the absence of the same, the Court below was right and justified in proceeding on the basis of the admission by R.W. 1 in his examination-in-chief and the inconsistent stand taken by him. 9. As regards the bona fide requirement of the premises for the use of the petitioners, petitioners have filed a separate affidavit along with the eviction petition narrating their requirement. The Court below has taken note of the same in the context of the provisions contained in the explanation to Section 27(2)(r) of the Act. In addition, the Court below has also taken note of the fact that the daughter of the 1st petitioner though married was living with the petitioners and that as per their version prior to leasing out the schedule premises to the father of the respondent, the shop premises was part of the house of the petitioners and by closing the door they had let out the same to the father of the tenant as a separate unit and now they intended to make use of the shop as an additional room to accommodate the members of the family. This requirement cannot be regarded as unreasonable. 10. Therefore, findings recorded by the Court below cannot be found fault with. In addition, the Court below has also taken note of the fact that rents were not regularly paid. Indeed, a sum of Rs. 9,000/- was sought to be paid by way of cheques which itself demonstrated that rents were not regularly paid. 10. Therefore, findings recorded by the Court below cannot be found fault with. In addition, the Court below has also taken note of the fact that rents were not regularly paid. Indeed, a sum of Rs. 9,000/- was sought to be paid by way of cheques which itself demonstrated that rents were not regularly paid. Be that as it may, suffice to observe that as the landlord has established the bona fide requirement for personal occupation, the findings recorded by the Court below cannot be found fault with and no case is made out to interfere with these findings. Hence, this revision petition being devoid of merits is dismissed. However, as the revision petitioner has been carrying on pawn brokerage in the premises, I find it just and appropriate to grant eight months time to hand over vacant possession of the premises on condition that he shall continues to pay rent as agreed for the use and occupation regularly, without committing any default. The tenant shall file an affidavit within two weeks from today, undertaking that he will voluntarily vacate and hand over the premises on or before 16-7-2016 without forcing the respondents to file execution petition and without seeking extension of time. Ordered accordingly.