1
IN "NEE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
IDATED THIS THE 7"" DAY OF JANUARY 2010
I BEFORE H
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI
H.R.R.P No.3/2010
BETWVEEN
Sri K01c.hand @ Kolehand
Khemchand Bh.ima11i,
Aged '70 years, _
Pmp1"ie1:.or of M / s.K K Metal;
{Old N314} New No.131 0'
Dr.}{) V G Road, BasaV,a1'1aguAd1'---.
Bangai0re~560 004. ' " 'V . Petitioner
(By Sri H J Szxtlghvi, Adv."/1'
AM)
Sm 11.. E3 141 "S1'1yEz11{v.1i'i:§11'1.,,,, A A
W / 0. 3r: C M I;c1_x;j1i11;31~ayana1,
Ag,§e.. 130/2,
1' . I)rg.{fi)° Vi--AC: Reacl, Ba'sava11ag1.1di,
. 1:3.:'1r:;ge1v1<::1f:::560 004. Respondent
1'Zu_'¢} __ G ei}ir1c1<2 Gewd 21, Adv 1)
'_1I"§j1is' "1{_e,visi0r1 Pefgition is filed under Section 46(1)
' of 1111:.}€a1*na1.e1i<a Rem. AC'.'{, 1999, praying to set aside
AE.§"1e.__jucig:11_ent', and decree dated -4.11.2009 in HRC
f€()._34E9/2()0-41 passed by the HI Additional Judge of
'S1'11a1E1 C'cu.1se.s C0L1:'i:. Bangaflore.
Qék"
t--.3
'i'his Revision Petition coming on for admission
this day, the court passed the following:
ORDER
The respondent filed HRC No.349/2OOci;VVi:.’rider
Sectioxi 27(2}[r} of Karnatalia Rent Act, 1999,.
vacate :;m.d obtain vacant. possessioti of”
shop premises. She contends theit
has been tenant of the sch’eVc’v1’La_1.e
years. That. the shop for her
unemployecl son, xvhotist order to start
a grocery sh(‘)p._'”
2. 01′} t’ the petitioner/ tenant
emiiesiecil i.–he.’vsg1id_ pet.it.ion. In the petition, there is no
iv”~._gr<v;.i:i.i:'tit§.._Amz1de (§'VL1"['*–~—-L;i'1d(31' Section 2'7[2]{r] of Karnataka
Rit"I1.'"i'ET.,. it is ;§ui*t1ie1' contended that the
1EiA.i'}_d1C)1'C_3,$'"iitiili employed. Herice, he does not require
the 1jieti'iio.io1o1 schedule premise. That the premise is
_ 1';1_EfE:'iu§3E,.11']'1"i_'.'_§ 15 ft. X 10 ft. and the same being beyond 14
v_:-:%C1.I}1iI:1'S5. ihere is no jurisdiction for the Court o
(–no–*'
a
K'!
eiit.ertai'1"i the petitioii. On CO1'1T.(3St, the court below by its
ii1i13i.1g'rii’1e.r / JE,CI’1.’:111J[( has preferred this revision p_e’titliefii- ;.
3. Sri Sariglivi, learned eotirisell”e:p«p’eaifirigV:v
pei;iti.<)1riei' contends that the
error in passing the in1pugiied«:e1'der.v. that
the C()1.}.1'l'. has no ju1%isL<iiCt',iQ1i"'ft;.fl'eglijjeyrai-ril{jhe"Vr3et;tion
siriee the diniension ,".i§k__bey0nd 14 sq.
mtrs. I–le .'l'i1'1'thee_r"«.eor1Vi:'e-lidsthat the respondent has
'c-11E.€I'}"l&"l'[l.Vt?A 1:)iferiii–se;~:=tV'ai1i'c'i. _t.1':'ia.i'. her claim tliat her son is
1..i1″lE’,’14″i§:1′[jv<i'L,}fl.\7('3C1 £1}-'1_dVvt.}13J[ the premises is required for
.f'fa"{"£1.I,"T','i.i"1_§___§' ,<.;)l.'4 grocery shop is untrue. He further
i'T{)'l:ll;C1"1i"lVSV"li':l'1_;i'E¥fllf3 petiiiiorier is aged almost, 70 years and
s4{.zll'e*iii1_1'g' from physical disability, which the Court:
"_".,$Vl4i(;.)'el.1('.l hr-:i,\~'e takeri into (f()1'lSid€f&1ti()IIf1 while deciding the
1:)":;i;itic)i1 .
0?/<*'"
5
i2t_1’iciI<)i'c1 has clearly established her case that the
}_)remise I'6Q"L.1.il'(3d for the bonafide use of her son. who
1.lI’}E:’}:I1})1()}7€d.
7. The eeiiteiition of the tenant, is that the sh0;V.)’e'(:hi:tae.s
mit 1}1<.__'e the main roaci and it is not suitable
21 pi'(.)'\»-'i&Iai(_'}I'i store. In View of the ,
son rat ic)i"d1oi"C1, starting of a g1"0é:'e1y!-sA1j1j0i5–e:'1:1.'~
1~<)z.1cii :11" in the byiane xxrouigi ne't.V_"'beV
eoiisc-:'qI.1ei1ee. The Trial this
aspect. oi the matter Ohjezrtions of the
t.'CI.i¢:ll"..1.3_ 'i'he1 'i'Li._i't,11eii t:~Qiit.ei'a1jiQri of the iearned counsel
for the ]5i;T'U;[l.i"()£Vfl(L'3I'théttxfi'-1'Q' E.;=.md101"d has other pi'erptses
ai"i(:i hence tthere. is. me i'e'c1i.ii1'emei'1t. to seek evietizim of
the ,p_%i~et1'1~isc:. "'{7hAe Trial (..'..ourt while considering the
5.v%'{i.i’l’L:it’ii2,.I1tt’. f}i’@’i’iji-SE8 came to the eo1’1eiusi0’n that it is
2’iieq1}..%’fe<.ifair?"sta.}'i;~i1'ig of 21 §;!.'()(.'.('3I'y shop for the son of the
i£_1}I'i('U(3§.'{'i 2»'u'i«:i._ it is riot: appmmiatze to stiart the same in
-Ve211″iy’ (“‘)”£’,’§I’i(‘V”:’f}.”‘ ijfcariiiises. Even otherwise, the owI1.ei’ship of
O?/AW