1 HRRP.No.298/2006
EN THE) HIGH coum ma' KARNATAIQI Tj '
cmcurr BENCH AT I}?ifi;RWé'_}Z.)flv'." f % %
DATED THIS THE 11% my Ol§"'?§C§.$fEMB£Af<';
'BEF0 §'£1'._.
THE HONELE M12 JUSTI_:(;V)}:?_§ H._.G.RAM;§:s:;:
H.Fi',R.F; Vii¥zc);%*'.z,«é:>'t;:L. _
BETWEEN:
Sri B.Jambu§§es§v2*;ra; '
S/0 late Sri i3.{}ai;ga;§pa.,*.' 'L~ A
6 1 years, ..€3ha i*t{é1'e'i:§;;:AccQu1_1I,e§r1t,. .
Old Bus. stand'R:)ad';.4 ._ ~
Hospet-5333201..' = ff» 1- % ...PE'I'I'I'IC}NER
{By Sri 7
V ' ' E'»mjt.'EadriV 'Pa17aineswaramma,
W] o..i:=:.§3 ~;f3:;'}§"aIt:a}'a'ishI2appa,
Aged; 75 yeafsj,
R/at:"-No.12Ulv#;; Ward No.18,
' §{0spet-583 261. .,RESPC%N[)EN'Z'
" - B. Sflamate, Advocate}
This HRRP is filed under Sactian 115 of cm
aagvai:1st the order dated 122.2005 passed in
"H£1'CR.Nz:L3/2005 on tim fiie 0f the PrI.Dis't::*ict Judge,
Beliaxy, dismissing the revisien petition {fled against the
arder éatrzd 9.2.2005 in HRA.N0.1/2000 by the Pricivfl
Jucige (Jr.Dn.,}, Eiospet.
2 HRRF.No.i2.98/ 200$
This HRRP coming 0:1 for hearing thig _
Court made the foiiawing:
ORDER
This I’€’J”iSi{}lTl petition by ti1é4’V1a}’1d10rc1.»’,{‘§ d;i:’e»§’té{i
against the order dated paxssed
of the ?r},.Di$t;’ic:t 3t_1dg§’,’ fvevision
petifion in HR.CRV.No.3/’ order dated
9.2 .2995 passe§ti;1¢¢:=.§3g}1§: Judge (Jr. £311.),
H0spe’£.7,_In._ -‘ciaim 0f the petitioner
landicrd Sccfizixa §f?{ié){r) cf the Kartziiataka Rent.
Act, (thé ~ seeking for posssessien of the
=__pf«fem§sc_$: ::>:1 I:h¢f ground that it was required for his
0cc:1ipatibri.’:i$ ia%:j’5eCted.
‘§’.hé’ cxnurt has hardiy given any .rea3on in
“..:fs:i:eci:’:i1j;gV§:he ciaim under Sectian :27{2)(r} of the Act; its
__ ‘V-reégserling reads as follows; ‘Xx
3 HRRP. N0. 298/ 200$
‘*9. As the ground af bonafide is not
available under Refit Act, the ssame ca:’:notW£;éV:’
considered”.
in my 0333111011, this is no rea;3011-at all i_1i”1″3:§i€2:ii;i;{:g
the ciahn of tha peztitioner umder 0?’
Act.
3. The revisionai scgurté..i”1a:~§ i*aé°§%:s;:<2<i ai':h::;~ eiéiim of
the petitioner under Secifiiéxi' {r}_};i) f',»__Act with the
following reaso_13i:r1g;*_~_
*"'18 " {here is nothing in the
evide?<uf:e% {sf Show that he has no
gaéher retz.-=,=.o;iaE5Iy";=3uitab£e accommodaition for
V- _fi:1s2,_'—9ccrz;paii§§i:""c:tV present. when that is the
' V. Tpetitioiter is not entities! to claim
._ the scheduie premises under
2..?'(2}LA«fr;} of the Kamataka Rent Control Act
, 1:”: Substance, the revisional Court 1133 mjeciaci
K —. ‘t:heE ciaim on the grmmd that there was no evidence on
w/
4 HRRP. N0. 298/ 2806
record to Show that the petitioner was not ‘hgvirggyv
ether reasonable accon1n10dati0;1:IE$i4 his&_1:;–se..: . e
5. Sri F.V.Pa£ii, iean1ed C2g)ur1S€l appe€§~I’ifiig~4fQr the
petitiomer specifically TEf€IT€d__f_Z;§’»§faI§1 5 .t)f«t,1i1§: jéfffidavit
of the pefifioner fled which reads
as failows; ” ‘ . a ‘
c§§;f;”‘fzot having a
go<;c'Z'*vre.a.§iz%$eri'iigr:i– b'1;:.: i'ding' "tt'z"$iaz't my standard
arifi — tine petition scheduze
pre;rhi.$é$% £3 F€C1*E(;ZiI'€3§fi";f'£§?4. my bomzfide use and
'Iff:i.$ '«.%::2x,7'i'%:ii<:_11<:€: was net challenged by ths
f'4$ .Sf/")x() :f1Ci(*SI.V}°'LV-:&=.iVCf_*tIiAéE£;}V.91'V'{ before the trial court. This revisional
gceurt ixasgicét cansiéered this evidence and hence, the
V' j.?;1dgfi;&::1t impugned herein is vitiated. The matter
'–5reqi;ires to be raconsidemd by tha revisional ceurt.
V _ " " &§{§£:rcii11g1y, I make tha foilawing order;
WV
V VV _ E1:$"""-
5 HRRI-“‘.No.298[ 2005
the impugned erder dated 17.2.2006 _
by mm (mun ofihc mmmmumfxkfigzgy
86113.13: insofar as it relates to 9
HRCR.N0.3/2865 is sef:$~asi(ie;_ .p _ «
the matter is rez1f;i_t1:ed “i:r:g ‘the zisf
PrI.Distri<::€ V. for
reconsideration i11 _.2ié}:ordanc£é "v2.i,£h_ Eiaw. It
shed}, dispos–$f=3f withiiz six
menths of'~.£fééT§:;§;§1;/productian
Of a. of this '<§;"def;'~ V' V
Sd/-3
Tudga