'cl: ORDER
These hirie revisions under Section 46 of the
Karnataka Refit Act, 1999 are directed against theVr’».o’ro_ers
dated 24–o4~2oo9 in HRC N09608: eoo, 603, 5g:;;eria,,r _
599, 607, 605/2006 respectiveiy orrthe fi!-eHot’::t.he’i~:ieaArheci–«.. °».
XI Addi, Judge, Court of Small Cat;i:ses_;,i~eE§eh’g,a’io’re,4’i”ej-ee_cti;fsg
the petition filed by the oetitiiooaer he-reiih VtheV’rve’t;3f._Vrjeciiriirrgii’u
the decree for eviction,
2. Heard the Iearihettcoonseiii»Mr’; é3.R. Vishwahath
for petitioner g?}i”‘i?i._t_i’i€ iearheti c’oiLi’i5é’.sj~eViv’!\r’i’if; CC. Poovaiah, for
respondents a_ri’siV””;”3’e?r:1s’e;ci–,oAth.ef:__re%;ords in suppiemehtatioh
thereto;
3′ ‘—o4Tihe focttiaifiactrix manifest from the records is:
pi.etitioxher*’**herein invoking Section 27(2)(r) and (o)
Rent Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as
‘tiheiAct’.”foV_rii::brevity) initiated proceedings to evict the
resporzriei-nts in aii these petitions on the premise that he is
V.’:x”tE7iE .CV\!fi€T of the prooerty in question which has severai
tenements. Each tenement rented has smaii dimension.
The property is situate at Siaughter House Road, Bahgaiore.
6
He purchased the same on 03-O2~2GS9 aieng with one
Zameerulia Khan. The reseondents in each _4e.fV_”~.th~ese
petitions are tenants :2′? smaii tenements is3§’_hih”é.’j'”S.§i**7i§’
building on meager rent. At the timehdf purch’as.eV.they’–i;vete”=
tenants and after acquiring title to the:pi’t?§ii:~er*t§}*iiteiweiic3z_gw;3_s
attomed and are now tenants’ii’n.der th-ern. V ”
4. It is averred’ that sich”et-i.l:j4:ej”‘t:.:jemseesisiaid and in
a dllaeidated state. tjemelitien and
reconstruction, of the Tenants is
best suited members. He has
feur th’e”‘s’dns are married and have
childrerifi. are residing with him. The
l’amil§,:_ _consli'”s~ts_”of_2–5 r;ilenilbers. He finds it difficult to adjust
“V’«–._the’n?i’:’ srnai”l “”” “accommodation avaiiable in their
“‘.PCss’essi’cgn.-°H,_V’Efhe entire building in their possession
n*iea’sures.’2′{3.g_>i}3O ft. Therefore, he intends to accommodate
{his manfied sons and other family members in the schedule
V”:V’ptern”§«ses. He alieged that the respondents have with
sinister design disputed the tenancy though tenancy was
well established.
schedeie erernises is e ciihchirig evidence in the present
proceedings. He referred to the finding recorded by the traii
Court in the eariier proceedings which cieariy show that the
trial Court had dismissed the eariier proceeding .en’i§k”e”h.s:thie
ground that Khatha was not mutated and ,ea:rticuiia’r
number to each portion in the eariiAer’preceedings_ vires’.~nc–»t
supported by the documentary
certificates produced in the,'”erese”nt-..’prQt:ee*d4i”hgss has”
eriginated subsequeht…V_&to ef'”~th’e eariier
proceedings. He because of the
doubt entert§a§’r’*e:edj’– in the eariier
proceedings’ of the property; the
petiticiner”‘aeeiifiveidifilto ni«u_’hi’ci’i%3ai corporation and has
obtained. setparatVe:..’Vi§hat4h_a*—icertihficates. Therefore, the doubt
created bx,/”~Vth’e.tena’nts~”in the earlier proceedings is no
“v..i0ri§re’r st«ihs.istindHv~;I’i*i*en the present petitions were filed,
Qt.;Z;«”‘_~v_v.._Th;’e””secend ground urged by him is that in the
eariier ;5r0’ceedings though petitiener had sought eviction of
the.4_resb0ndents–tenants for own use and occupation which
‘Atriai Court negated, the present petition is fiied in
“changeci circumstahcesi Ne doubt in the eariier preceedirig
aiso he haci sought for eviction of the tenants for own use
and occupation but at that time; his three sons had to be
married. In the present petition, the heed projected’-._i_s for
accommodating his married sons which was Nno’to”s::4ifi:jVect
matter for consideration in the eariier
Regarding the condition of the bui:i’ding; .h’_e”..’su.hhhits__th’at:the
buiiding is diiapidated and réq.oi’i-r-as d»éVi_’–fiAO§»i.ti0r’§’:’.”<3bi;i'(Zi_VV
reconstruction,
13' Per contreiii-:7 the iearned
counsei for respondents-wstibjhwit:-Vtt::at".'noV;ci'.ou'Vht the petitioner
might have.VVa's":prociaimed by him
under him, yet the question
for he has described the portion in
occupatiohohy each t.h:e:r4esponCients–tenants correctiy. In
thisprregard, hewioiiiild contend that in the earlier proceedings
to.a"o.ove, the triai Court noticed the discrepancy in
the.-._rho'r':ici.p_ai~;'r'i'timher of the portion in occupation of each
tenant aindithe averments in the petitions. He submits that
ii"'~4"'u.o,:t'he._petVi'tioner had in the cause titie of the eviction petition
iiahidhin the iegai notice mentioned different rnonicipai
""niurr2bers whereas in the scheduie to the petition; the
V';
E”:
(
5′
3/”
56
1? In the present proceedings, Zameeruiia Khan,
ccvowner is not a party. Only the petitioner has co-o:.t§’ir2tied
the iis of his own against the responoehtsEfte_rj:i’a.ntS».A
However, on perusai of the averments..i_n_u_’the-»A.:e\r_iction.oV
petition, it is seen uniike in the ea.riie;r”‘pr’o’ceeti-én.g[the
petitioner has described the .rnuoic:i.pai nun2*be.rVs ‘of°}e”a:fh’g
portion based on the separate’ ichatha the
Corporations It is aisofiinot monicipai
numbers assigned to ‘.~i;.h.gfi.’.I’\’.§i¢.:upation of the
respondents each petition is
based oni. assigned by the
c0rpor:§tiioni%t téh.eW’iV<'Vhatha. This part of the
evidence' in the earlier proceedings. It is
aisohot in"4"d._i:sput'e that the petitioner had accepted the
~,.,.,firii2iin'gi..p'f the triaiffoijyrt and to rectify the municipai number
in respect of each portion to be
ide-n__tifiee;i~ municipal number. The respondents having
not dizsvprfiteo these factsg it has to be held that the rnateriai
–,,e\;.i.ctence produced by the petitioner and his co« owner in the
.,,_.eariier proceedings was not so convincing about the
rnunicipai particuiars of each tenement whereas in the
present proceedings, the petitioner has produced Khatha
r B;
‘i,,,,/
extracts in respect of each pertion which is identified by
separate rritinicipai number. Therefore; triai Court was
required to examine whether the materiei evidence pietzed in
the present proceedings estabiishes identify of
At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that the~._res’pond”er;ts.
had denied relationship 0:’ iandlordiian’d’t_e’nant
basis of doubt regarding identify oi’~th;e.V_propevt’ty:’ tiy
up title in somebody else or bdtt«i.not upon th’en9i.seVi”t{eVsV}V The
piea in the counter fitedfdoy showsvithat they
admitted that they are small portions
in the same ;b’u:i~idIing hand’~:§?ver.e::’i’iii–i.aDifiif’to pay rents and
claimed tot’ the former owner.
Howeve iiii that petitioner and
Zameeruiia the property from a person
who ‘had titie _andfwh’o Vi/vas a iandiord of the respondents
onh/”‘g’round to dispute jurai reiationship of
=ter”iant was that the identify of the schedule
prep4ertyeuvraEs’iV’not cerrect. In fact in their evidence, the
V’-».respond,e_ints have virtuaiiy given a gobye to these defences
x”xand_ unequivocal terms admitted that they are tenants
_’Vt;_nder the petitioner. The defence of the respondents is
V’ virtuaiiy same in each case. Just to avoid unnecessary
l9
respondent-Nlurthy to be in occupation of premises bearing
No.24. Exhibit P1~i:< paid receipt issued by
B.TB.M..P_.:' Bangalore supports petitioner's contention that the
-,.p’ort.i.on in occupation of the respondent–Balaji bears No.21
described in the schedule.
gr/.»–>;;’-\,.~¥. ‘
s ,5
<.P2~l<hatha Extract
and Ex.P3-Tax paid receipt.
24. Smt.Kanthamma, respondent__”–Vti”-:ufl..V”‘i.n
H.R.No.601/2001 like other respondents has
her tenancy in respect of premises”JbAea’r’irig’E-,No;.«2j8″iinderrthe
petitioner which is further _ supportedn
Certificate, E><.P2~Khatha ana._"Exj';_P§'»frékl' paid'
receipt.
25′ Smt§g3’hnarri’rr’ia ;H.R.C.599/2006
h8S in respect of
Eetitioner. It is further
supported -.bylx.Ed5{V..l?~Jr}’l<h'art_ha—Certificate, Ex.P2~Khatha Extract
and Ex.P3"–<T_ay._pa'§d "HéC»e:i:'p.t.44 V.
V' 2:6; ~vl.§'mt.'S'h'iVa'gami, respondent in
like other tenants has also admitted to
be-iln oCcdp.ation of premises bearing No.22. It is further
suppo'i'te-Ad by Ex.P1–Khatha Certificate, Ex.P2~Khatha Extract
E'-.Aa'n.drEx.P3-Tax paid receipt.
2?. Smt.Elizabeth respondent in H.R.C.No.6OS/2006
in her deposition has also admitted to be in occupation of
to
in
their depositions is sufficient to negate the defence taken by
the tenants and record a finding in favour of the _4bweti-tioner
which the trial court had failed to do so.
29. At this juncture, it is nv’eces’saty’«.to.:deal.with’the
technical objection raised by $r_i.Poov._aiah about’ the ‘~etfec’t:Voi’..V
Section 61 of the Act. Nodo’u.biti,. prox/i’sio’i°i_of 61V’
envisages that:
“The Court or the”VClon–t.rol»lfet Shall
summarily” reject” ‘army a’p.p’l.icati.on” “under
this At;’wEé,i_ch r’a_ises~~*betwee’n.thfe same
parties “or fbetween part«ies. under whom
they or;-any of .them ‘c-!a.im;_ substantially
the, same’%:issues’ ._as” have} been finally
,decid’ed}in a’foi’m’e.r’proc_eéding under this
Act: ‘or. “ur’i’d.e’rl ,_ainy'”~..of- the enactments
repealed ‘ by ‘ sje.ct’i’o._n’ C7. ”
ThV.’€””..lC:|lci€S’t:iOl’l as to whether if the plea of
»lan«d_ylor.d ‘th’a,t°*-he requires the premises for his own use and
‘.ocwcu.paVtVion_”g:..h’a=s£been rejected, could he agitate the same
j grou’nd””even under the same circumstances and also as to
uV””..j’V.WtletheVr’ finding recorded in earlier proceedings regarding
relationship between the parties for want of evidence
it “comes within the mischief of Section 61 of the Act. This
issue has been considered by the Apex Court in the case of
24
N.R.NARAYAN SW/AMY vs B.FRANCIS JAGAN reported in ILR
2001 KAR 4827, wherein the Apex Court held thus:
“In our view, the High Court ought
have considered the fact that in evi§:tion;..__’___iif
proceedings under the Rent Act the ground
bona fide requirement or novn-pa-ymefntilofreénti’
is a recurring Cause and, the’ref€rE,.:’La’itCll’ol4{\l ‘i
not precluded from in«s”ti_tu’ting
proceedings. In an evict’ion”‘isuit on
of bona fide requirement’ the”‘Q~§nuin’enve.ss5§of
the said ground is””tob.e7.dei:ide’d-Vyjorrthe basis of
requirement on th.e.,:daete”__’Qi§g fies.’ Further,
even if ;~a'”‘;g_lt ground of
bona and is dismissed
itpV_.can”r’rot’ __he_ld’ a question of
rriecessiity-‘i_*ris.__deci’d:ed.,._against the Landlord he
wiil not and genuine necessity
_everV’ii’nV%dfutu’re. in ‘the subsequent proceedings,
such cillairnvpis established by cogent evidence
by iiiii H the Landlord, decree for
it could be passed.”
31°.’ -.Arl5urther, the Apex Court referring to its earlier
.1d.e;(:i.sion’*'”in the case of K.S.SUNDARARAJU CHETTIAR vs
4’_’ue.-“l\{l’.’R.’liAMACHANDRA NAIDU reported in (1994) 5 scc 14
it -~-and opined thus ;
Eu
‘Jr
“The aforesaid rule would have no application
in a proceeding initiated for recovering the suit
premises on the ground of bona fide
requirement which is a recurring cause. OFd€F’_’r’»_
XXIII Rule 1(4)(b) precludes the plaintiff
instituting any fresh suit in respect i”
subject matter or such part ofthe claim « V
the plaintiff has withdrawn!
eviction of a Tenant under the” 2
ground of bonafide reg.u:vi’r=e_men’t
the premises remains ‘.t.l’lE3.V_:S.’Ub]’vé3Ct
matter which be
different. The §Jro.un’d’V-»i’Vfor in the
subsequent upon
require,nienAt’i’d:o_ii .tlf,.ef:d_fa$te_…4of. vtheisaid suit even
though’ itj_4_re_lat’é’si sarnegproperty.”
._ that further finding recorded
in earlier’=.p’rocee’din’gAs.’b’etw.een the same parties will not
comielwithin the ._V_mi’sch:ief of Section 61 of the Act. Further, I
the pleadings of the parties in the earlier
,,,.proc_e«ed’in’g.s__ the present proceedings. In the earlier
prouc’eec:..i:ngs”‘:in H.R.C.10171/2001 and connected matters
.,:t’hes__peti’tioner along with Zahiruddin had invoked provisions
“of'”Section of 21(1)(h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act,
“”1961 seeking eviction of the respondent for his bonafide use
\ y xgx”
g 2′
.1
premises in occupation of respondents to accommodate his
married daughters and other family members. He would
submit that in the present petition, he sour;-h’_ti..V_for
accommodation to accommodate his four sosn’_}§”vvh¢._.__we__rej_
married subsequent to earlier proceedings_,–“T-he*se”faC–ts areq
not in dispute as could be seen f’r,om_-the ayermentsf-._i__n”the
earlier proceedings and thV§’s’«-proceedilregg. ii”‘aim.,__thereforetv
inclined to accept Sri.\/’_ishwangafith-f,s_ co_ntenti«.ohfithaft the need
projected in the earl”ier”_pifloceeydi’i*jgVs::had become more
pressing and urgent :wl’1e.nfg tti–e_:,s’e.c”oind”.ivproceedings were
initiated due.
satVistied’._’oh’perusal of the pleadings of
the eaimelr petition that though at the
firstlook it r_na.yjap’pea”i”lV similar but the requirement has
‘3″2,suostao-tial~vly incre’a’se’d. The need projected in the present
p’eti’tion”s_;isinichanged circumstances. Therefore in view of
decisio_.n’i:; of the Apex Court referred supra, the
contehtirirn of respondents-tenants that provisions of Section
suits the petitioner is not acceptable and hence, the
said ground is rejected. Under the circumstances, the
observation made by the trial Court that the respondents
30
under clause (r) of subsection 2 of Sec.27 of the Act. In the
result? the petitions succeed. The order dated 24=~O4~20D9
in HRC. No.608, 600, 603, 602, 604, 601, 59§}f–.gg607,
605/2006 on the file of the learned ><1 Addli Jud.ge4;:vCoeiJ'Vrt"'of
Small Causes, Bangalore are set aside.
37. Now coming to the qu’esti~dnA. ol’t’imé;,r_it
is seen that Tenants are sa6i_d”-to be»firzanciallilyg=w.eVa.l{ and,’
engaged in menial jobs. TheV__l_e”ar:ned_v couln’-seiV._AMr.7 Poovaiah
has pointed out to the respondents are
in very poor condvihtion,”a’i’rd::’:theref_o’re; that would
result in very high. I am
satisfied eighteen months
time to ,an.d”vdeliver vacant possession of the
schedule “pr_4emvi’sVes the»e.664petitioner — Landlord, subject to
pavn§jeVnt~ of thvevarnount towards arrears of rent and current
,r:e’nt »’t:;ti§.Qut”*default. Respondents shall file an affidavit in
this Court within three weeks from now
uncl”erta*–l<«in'g".Vto quit, vacate and deliver vacant possession of
63.,the-schedule premises to the petitioner — Landlord, within
the time granted by this Court and shall not induct any
“persons in the schedule premises.
31
H.R.R.P.NOS.97/2010, 89/2010, 90/2010, 91/2010,
92/2010; 93/2010,, 94/2010, 95/2010 & 96/2010 by
the petitioner shall stand aliowed under Secti0nV…2_J?{VZ’)4s:4{fV;r}””0f
the Kamataka Rent Act. The 0rdeVrfs””-..:passed”
H.R.C.€-308/2006, 605/2006, 607/2v'(J)'(AjV6″59_9;/2006;;GQ1/fi’Q[i€,
604/2006, 602/2006,6303/2006 0 60.022006 te:0’evcts\}te«I§~eke.
set aside.
However, the .’:1pmpQ.nd’e’nVts{‘te0n._entst’Héreh granted
eighteen months time vacate the
premises SUlf)]’3f;”C’;’~?:\.:[_-Q’COt:t”ditgit}.h{9 ab0V€«
,0 3
t Eudge
V’ 1 A. ….. .. V