. ___.-. _. .............r....-. ....... -av-.-u -ur na-uuvnlnnn nu.-pr; 1,
IN THE HIGH C--C}URT OF KARNA'IhKA9LT
DATED THIS THE 21* my OFJAPRERYQQCQA. R
BEFORE
THE I-IOIEPBLE mzJu3'rx3E
HRRP No.209
1 rm '.7 R I'£UF.'I'I-1'3" _ V
5.10 LATE »
AGED ABOUT 53 j:E_:;Rs, _ j_
2 SET VID'fAVA'I'I-II
we V.P..I{URTHY H -- »
A339 ABOUT 51 1*3_.a.z;_s',; '
EGTH ARE E/am: 6"V.74,¥:'I.*.E§1"<:":',rtc1ss,'VV'
CAVEIERY Rom, '-UDI~mY21.j ~ '
m 16; " _ '
' . . "par:-rxnums
£By "£'I-3}C3'£!I-§:EIfi'ii$M.A, ADVOCATE" 1
K H mmmxwmmm
"S/0'1~1R.CHC2LI}?%H smrnr
"AG-'£:n'A1;oUT 59" YEARS,
, «:RJA'I'..fNG;ii;:!,, 32.9 (mass,
-» _R_rm2:;5:s3m*_.=a0an,
'j1!:Y3aP'P.?aLL§I¥sI%ALLI Exrmszcu,
n;.11;a*:A:;3RE 33 .
I 3 T ivazppmma
are K.H.MALLIKAP.JUNA,
or-uuuru I I
l"II\Jl'| \-\JIJI\l \.Ir ru-Inn':-uusnrr -nun» \--1J\rI\v vu -up-w;uu--u-ru-.--. -uvu -..-----... --. ._ ..-. .. ---
3
the Trial Court allowed the eviction petition filed by
the respondents herein. Questioning the
this revision petition is filed.
2. The case of the
residing in a rented preeiieee eitriated :33
place and they warxt to the in
question. The L.;l:«.§;g§autit)jzib”eonei.ete ef one
hall, apart from
store premises was let out i
for a an unx1emtand.1ng’
that from the said interest be
treated accommodation. The
and wife.
L i t it ia the eaee of the tenants that
the egreernent between the parties is a mortgage
if-egfiement and not the lease agreement. The
-respondent landlords are rwiding in their own
house and therefore they do not need the premium
N/N
…_~…_.4_…… _..— …-… ……. – -.– «rm- up— .-.u- u—-nuns ‘rs:-jg”-‘ .’..”I ‘_ ‘ ,
FYITTI’ wr-‘ — —-
5
question is a non-residential premises having 14
Sqszits. area. The Trial Court on conaideringjiihg
material on record dismissed the aaid
alongwith the main petition. ‘dc’¢”iid1i’V:g° ”
the Trial Court has assigned
for coming to thc wncluhibn. Eiasc ‘V
agreement amply ‘ah-hedule
premises is 3. premiaes in
quwticm room, toilet
apart It is no doubt
true 4 x 8 ft attached the
prctniaea” in was 3. non- residential
;1’he:.. ….. Jaridlords had ‘films! I-IRC
‘for evicting the tenants from the said
was a shop. Said HRC petition was
Tha premises in question is rest of the
A which is used as residential premises. In
i of the same, there is I10 bar for the Trial Court
/\/>
OF KARNAEAKA “lb” K,.!u.?UK’ ‘JV NJKKIVIIIIIISII I’Il\.IF”‘ \.\I’I.II\I \l’ I\l’lII|ir1Ir1l\rw – .-
6
to entertain the HRC petitien for evicting the
tenants under the provisions of Karnataka Revr1i;:’£§_ctv,
6. The reqtxirement of the ..
said to be unreasonable. The ‘V
occupy their awn houseeezg they a
rented house in a farpfi want
to occupy their cannot be
treated as ether hand, the
need of reaecgagblc and honafide.
7%. is supported by the
a.fidavit;”e*3fhua:VV’the’._V amass’ in favour of
pf the’k:.nd1erda, under the explanation to
Se_éfi§:i.:;i!7.:.::(‘2) [r 1 of the Karnataka Rent Act.
the tenant to rebut the presumption.
.Shajd..h-iirden is not diacharged by the tenants. The
éh have merely contended that the landlord:
already residing in thm’r own house. and the
same is specifically denied by the landlords. On the
W
V’II\’fl’I.\..\JU!’\I vr l\l’\l\I’l”|Il’II\l’I ‘II\?Ur \.__n.avn- V. -u-nu-.–…1…1 -u… .._
‘2’
other had, the landlord’: have stated that they are
residing in the rented premisaaa. In View of thee .51!-‘skiing,
the Trial Court is justifiud in allowing
petition. Even on recnnaidcra.fiaz:. ‘
this Court does not find any ‘ 5
order of cu-ictien.
Hence psctiti-anv. the same
is dismiaseg, totamy «of the
facts & the tenants arc
till the end of
August 2399. of Ra.1,fiC!,00O}’- which is
1;,-mg’ fiixxi-flfea.f:no’rw1..dent Landlords will have be
at the time. of vaeatirls the
/1 .. . ‘
Judge
*III1’1/”39. 1|