IN THE BIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT Og"sg1O;:;LORE
DATED THIS THE 23rd DAY OF JUL§?;2(§§§~'
B_E,'.EOB£j..,;
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE.
HOUSE RENT REVISION PE'riT;ON 57 iEv1)" %
CO:~L1g_g_O?i"EL$x3dm A
HOUSE RENT' R--.E_VISIGN.--P'ET'i?1Q;I§SS OF 2009 (EVI)
O »__AND
HOUSE REM'?RE:v:s1O}§r>i3T:T1ON NO. 59 OF 2909 (EV!)
vabofiii 65 years,
Wf{)." Mrxwifliam Hart,
"O ;Mr.,S.V£1.:LOr, Aged abO1:i63 years,
'SEO. Late M:'.Susainathan,
T V' Mrs.S.Merina, Aged about 60 years,
W./O. Mr.Atph0nes,
- « Basgfiuwvfiéo 034.: %%%%% 14 «
4. Mrs.D.S.Rosy, Aged about 38 years,
W10. Mr.M.Maria Pragasam,
5. Mrltzrard, Aged about 47 years,
SEO. Late Mr.Susainathafl,
All (1) £0 (5) presently Residing at
No.42, Hutchins Main Road,
Sl.Thumas Town, Bangalore. A A_ .3 . _ '
Pin: 560 034. '. ';;._F'cfiti.ii3n§i'q_:
(By Sri: K.R.Ashok Kumar, Ad§¢cd,;e.) u
AND:
Mr.Kumar,
Sic. Laté'Nara§}3n "E1: '
Shup N'a}.3,._PmmEr-;v:s»,'V"~ * -
No.54, ("1*i'ew.Nc3.--4V.?;'},,Aj_L'~._
Hutu-hins Ruéid_, 2 " _
Cooke Town .. ' "
"Respondent:
Advocaltz)
This Hfiusrs Rent Revision Pcliiiun is fiitzd under Sccliun 46
r__of the '~K.a"mamka Rent Act against Judgment and order dated
4 ,1'-'%..T§__¥.2(')€)8 passed 51': HRC. N0.}()()33f2003 on the fiie of the XV
Q-5x~:1dia{i'13I:ai Smali Causes, Iudgc Mayuhail Unii, Bangalurc,
2 _V (SCCRN0. E 9) dismissing the petition flied under Sectiozz 2'?(2)(a)
% W&§( 1") uffiamalaka Rent Ac-L
House Rum Revision Petition M53 OF 2009 ' '
BETWEEN:
1. Mm.Daisy Aged about 65 ytzarg,
WED. Mr.Wiiiiam Hart, - *
2. Mr.S.Vic1or,Agcd abug;L63Ay«':'a}=.~§_;'--
3. Mr-s.S.Mcrina_,'Aged ;a¥:m :--tIt30V W;%4 _
Wis.
4. V
VWQ; .Pra_gasam,* ~. . V
5. Mr.:5§rAI@i, 'gffiais,
SEO. Lats Mt.Sus&%§;atfi213; '
,,i?§51'1'V(l.) to Residing at
" VNVOJ-2, Haichins Tfiain Road,
A " » S1.The)n:ai-;"~-Tgwn, Bangaiortz.
1>iu:%'35:; e334k.(%
.,.PETITi0NERS
(Bf Sriv"iA§~i;Ii.Ashuk Kumar, Advmzalc.)
Mr.B.V.Shanker,
'S/o.Late B.T.Venkataswamy,
Shop No.1, Premises,
Ne.:'S4, {New No.42),
Hatching Main Road,
Creeks: Tuwn
Banga1c3re--S6O 084.
(By Sri: B.Ashwathaiah, Advocate')
This Huuae Rent Rcvisimi E'_e{iti:§ie.§$"fi1c>d Scciiofi 43:} %»
of the Karnataka Rent Act again'sf'v~%3udgmcnt and "'~-lvéiriet dated
14-1 1 .2003 passed in HRC. No.1f}(§34z'2§)(}8 d1:..fiié file}; 0f the XV
Additional Smal} C?aiiS'e.§9 Jafdge Mziyeghall Um" Bangalorts,
(SCCH.N<:). 19) dismissing--'£h e. 'fi'E!¢,fi; under Section ?.'!{'2)(a)
& ( 1") ufiiarnaiaka Rent 1
1. Mm.D.-gisy }'a"g;:,§V{i.V.é{{:-;;¥t1%..V;6';"S :';§'!sa1.'s,
WEO. IShj.X'J,illi3._m
2; Fi;ir.vS__:§'5.*";L*.lu.r»," ?:gg;d_«a.b0ut 63 years,
'V " « , _ x"."E§.!3:;" I§JI.Susainathan,
Aged about 60 ycars,
' ,__ WioV._ N£f.:_A'lphones,
4. Ivi:$_;D.S-Rusy, Aged about 58 years,
n ' 'Win. Mr.M.Maria Pragasam,
HMr.3t:I*ard, Aged abuui 47 years,
S/0. Late Mrfiusainathan,
All (1) to (S) prcmcnily Residing at
No.42, Hut-chins Main Raad,
SL.Thumas Tuwn, Bangalure.
6
Pin: 560 084.
(By Sri: I<'..R.Ashuk Kumar, A¢;:§ucn£é.f+ '
And; * M
Mr.Sadiq
S10. Late Abdul Azaz, Majnr,
Shop No.2, Pmmiscs, "
No.5-4, (New No.42), V 'V
Hutchinse Main R_0ad_, *
Cooke Town é 2:
Bangalore~:.60"Q8€§£i,_ *
_V _ é _ ' ..RESPONI)ENT
(By
?c:tit.ion is filed under Seuiiun 46
of the Kainnmka 'R.¢nt_ against Judgment and order dated
14} §'.1".0()8 ;m».'~::'~:edVi'iz HRC. No_I()(}35/2008 on the file of the XV
'~ A(.',§_i§éi.it;n;:E Smhzfii nflazsscs, Judge Mayohall Unit, Bangalore,
" (SCCH'.No,I9_} dismissing the petition filed under Sectinn iZ'i(2)(a)
Rent Ac-L
finusc Rent Rtzvisiun Pclitinn are coming on E11'
He»:~iring;hi:§ day, the Court made the foilnwing; «-
ORDER
Heard the: Cuunscl fur the petitioners and {hat rcsspundtznis.
V’ ‘”Thc: pruscni revision pcfiiliunts are prcikxrcd against a common
nrdcr in peiilivns bmughi Lung Sactiun 27(2){a) anti (r) of {he
6
Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 (hereinafler referred ts.) as ‘the 1999 Act’
fer brevity).
2. The petitioners are eumnmn in all revllisiunl
petitions. They claim to be the l’
petition schedule premises :1’ncl__ h§2u;l;_ ll’prefemf*esj;
evietizm titions arainst the res iitivexes hmients seekinv their
ejeetment on the gruuud”L’vet. the required the premises
for their ‘bike T. aiiii ‘Lmeupafiun: ‘ V V
The’peti§iVoii:a_ §vere.l*é_;r.silsted by the respmzdexzts. The trial
eeur!5;.~:uO* mute’ these petitions on its own initiative and
at of the petitioners herein and has {maxed issues
as. petitiuners proved the relationship of landlord
teeaei and whether there was arrears of rent and whether the
“_;,}etbiti§_sners proved that they required the petition premises for their
.l __e€vn use and uceupaliun, On the queetiun ef {he jural relatienehip,
ll it is held in Emmet of the petitioners. – Insmficxr as the i:lI”1″(3.’:£,IS of rent
is euncemed, it is held in lhgnegative. And we the question
whether they required the premises for their o\v;2’~._i~«_and
occupation , the peeuiiar circumstance which
taken note of is that though there was 7_4undei* 2’4ie§g,=.-1ifne’tice’ ; i
preceding eaeh of these petitiens
dilapidated mama and tfi§r¢£ei’s,, the p¢;;;s§i:mLs%;i;t¢iidea ts
demolish and reeenstrzaei~~..§}1e tier (iisvn use and
having called upen the deliver vacant
pessessiun, aspect of the matter.
There seem iteii;*§ee;iii’ngs;Li_ifieweiaerg in the eeurse wt’ evidence, it
was suughtlte that at! the three premises were
_ ‘by the ‘petitioners in urder to expand their business at’
‘r1ttmingvV_v:£~tCexi’te.en which was presently being run in the hind
fieffien iefiitiieipietitiun seheduie premises and that they were else
i’._..residin~giin the said portion. The trial euert has held that the
that the petiticmers did not piead as to the premises
Hheing required fur their awn eeeupatiun anti they intended to
ii demolish and reeenstruet and the fertile: circumstance that each
petition {tit} not refer to the other two petitions whee the
Z
the notice preceding the eviction petitions did indieatett,_tt;a.t this
was the intention of the petitioners in seeking, __¢:’-§5it:ti.fL_:rni
respondents. At the same time, the tfeaeoning”ut{::the”*tri:;tt Ctiultuft.
cannot be faulted. Having regent-._ te:fG:.e’
petitions were brought as airea¥t;§i’~~:§iated,”- this; aippearst
to be a lapse en the of wt1nha.s pt-ep-dmd and
presented the petitions. he uf requirement of
specific t:pei.itioner:,~;. In ether
words, ve»:.:gt1Tt’z1__(.)t to be deprived at the property, if
in that, Vin}: 1;; eetabtish that the petition schedule
preznfiees ‘are required {Far their ewn use and occupation after
t ‘ V . 2 defnetrtieii ~ éegzenstructiun.
ttiew of the matter, since the petitions apparenliy
‘ V}.t§1e.\.re’.t:3ee’z’:” dismissed more with reference tu form than the genuine
the petitioners, it is appropriate that the petitioners be
§n)vided an opportunity of bringing fresh petitions on fresh
grounds and that the petitienem need not be shut eat on the greund
@
E0
uf the pcliiiuns being, baxmd by res judicaia. While: making this
ubszsrvaiiun that the puliiiuucrs an: at liberty
pciiliuns on the same gruund while SpGUifiC3.;.:}’.f”_:
need and requirement after dcmoiitign an-:1. fimcz-a.»3I.’1:s.ir”L-:c:1t£~«.r;:«’.v.1__ 9.5: Jim ‘
property, the petitions are disniissgd. “i'”‘ht:’erdcx=’v£i§.§}3;:_VVtz*iQi§ Coznft.
is aflirxned with the £1bL3′{t: ub3srg¢_-4Rt:ia:I_1sV._»_v it is gisar that the
pciiiiencrs wuuid be at f.i>;_ Vuthcr grounds as may
be avaiiabit: to .1h&;i:;–.in that may be flied.
Sd/-3,
Iudgé
[IV