rd' A 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 5?" DAY OF OCTOBER 2O10H3_% BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE 3AWA_D~ 9.AH1:Y.5Tf: . HRRP N().22$A2='010.f--g;¥:'__E2"".> " ' A A MISC. CVL. NO. 1'5_5E=._9'/10 '- BETWEEN: (BY SvRI"E9..AG5RA':VEND'€iA-_k.I ADM SMT.SUSHEELAMMA c.,v-.-- " _ W/O LATE C K VASUDIEV ' AGED 70 YEARS " NO.13 & 14, PROPRIETR_X._ OE M/s_L:DA.YA sj;'TO'P;ES KEMPE?GO';Y»YDVA.R--OAD" " BAN;GA§__OREA-56O.._OY99.V * = " A 'E PETITIONER AND: 1. S L' §5§ISHVN.AV ¥f_UM:A'R ' "S/O LATASV LAKSHMANNDEV AGED 47"'YEA_Rs, NO.11/1 ;EKAS"TY~.CIRCLE, VISHWESHWARPURAM A _ ~vE3A~N:vG.A'LOREw560 004 ' S'Y'§GO~"-YINDARA3 S~/O TEATE S VENKATAPPA '' ,. AGED 70 YEARS K SAROEAM MA W/O s v GOVINDARA3 AGED 61 YEARS NOS.2 AND 3 ARE HUSBAND 81 WIFE 3&1/' 2 BOTH R/A 219, RING ROAD, BSK III STAGE, BANGALORE--56G 085 RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI C M CHANDRAPRASAD, ADV FOR C/Rs)
H.R.R.P. IS FILED u/s 46(1) OF K.R.ACT, AEAINST
THE ORDER DT.8.7.2010 PASSED IN HRc.314/Ot7″vO_N_ THE
FILE OF CHIEF JUDGE, COURT OF SMAL’L’-«.i’C£_\_U»L’?E;E:3.,
BANGALORE, ALLOWING THE PETITION U/S ..2?(2):”(e)i,_'(h)*.
& (r) of K.R.ACT AND DISMISSING PETITI0NV__F~I1.E»D’ up/s 2:2»
(2)(r) AND sEc.31(1)(c) OF THE Ac=r,_AN:i> mzsexcvf. FER» E
5rA\g E-‘.”rc,
Cvt
. EC {YIx’§C,_ ltd’. ‘ ‘I ,V 4 I
This HRRP,’ C0iT!i|’IQ on for A’d_miSSi0r}.v’tIf!.iS day, theg
Court made the foliowing:
Tenant is in o:rd»er dated 8.7.2010
in HRC.314/7V9_:of3_ theiviifiivle:V:of.:’3«tiVd_geV; siriiiait Causes Court,
Banga;iore.’_A th:e~«.’petitEon filed by the respondents
under S’ectiOn and (r) and also Section 31
(1)(t;}., pf uthe”‘i<arnatai<a Rent Act, 1999, (hereinafter
revf'er:re"dftO'I'as theiéicti) has been ailowed.
'
Tvhe.V7p_e.ti'tiOn is admitted and by consent taken up for
finai disposal.
I Respondents initiated eviction proceedings against
theipetitioner on the basis that the portion in his occupation
837/
3
and adjoining portions which form one composite unit
bearing Nos.13 and 14, Kempegowda Road, Bangalorei,,.Vare
required for immediate demolition and reconstr’u’ct–ior1.§
petitioner was a tenant on a monthly rent~io.fA4_:l?t.s,3C:0,/– “and,
had taken the premises initially fo.r,tsf;el’i-in’g.,.’
changed the user subsequent.l_y. ‘It__i’s alleiged ‘t;:enar1:tj
has, in violation of the termsHoif_V’»vleaVse,Vtic-hangzedllithe nature
of business. It is ~alle’ged..,_’th’a«t_theH’strlucture had
become unsafe__on being uprooted.
The roots damage to the
building angj ‘:’i’ai’ndV’l:ords proposed to build a
complex and have obtained
leave an.d,4’lice’ncé Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike
for doing so. i_=o’u’r tenants namely, M/s Filmstan Exhibiters,
l\/iE’;§hnui~.E.3havaln’,’i’M/s KGN Stores and M/s Udaya Stores
1*~g(plfesejnt-.Jpetitliioner) were approached by the landlords.
While ,___vthelA.1’~v’other tenants vacated, the present petitioner
regsisteeziih. It is averred that after taking possession from
«H_’ot–her tenants, demoiition has been done and the new
= ..structure is almost completed. The landlords averred that
(W
4
the schedule premises is ideally suited for ingress and
egress to the building, and therefore, eviction was sought.
4. The tenant resisted the eviction proceedings.e.ri’t,hree
counts: firstly that the landlords have entered;”‘i’ntoj_~
transaction with M/s S.V.B.Enterprises for_.39.
now in possession. Therefore, the landA.lford,s’:h.a’ve’lost ‘
right to seek eviction. Secondly, contended’.
lease period of 30 years in of the .5,ch’edu1le premises
has not yet expired till j;hei’i.__’hé«.cannotHbe evicted.
Lastly, it is contended….t.h’at. not required by
the landlords__for4l’th,eirV:’ov\fn”useand ‘occupation.
5. Thetrial co_urt,_ Fla}: examined these contentions in the
ligiii: oftrre ev’iden_cevon record and reached the affirmative
‘Vifindin-g_'<tha't"Vthe landlords have established the 'need'
,6. z this petition reiterating the defence made before
trial court, learned counsel for the petitioner submits
_.;%there is severance of relationship of landlord and tenant
(idly
5
between the parties as the respondents have transferred
the property in favour of M/s S.V.i3.Enterprises, developers,
who have demolished the buiiding and the landlord-s___ have
not been vested with the right to evict the tenant’L;–Vy:”‘v.He
further submits that the lease period of 30
of the petitioner is interminabie.
7. In negation of aii these con’tentions, i”earn.ed
for the respondents submits th:a’tV.ythere is rod passin’g’ of title’
by the iandlords in fayogr of’.M/st.’S;\/;’B_..Enterprises. All that
the Eandlords have done ;_is to.ier’1tri,isVtj’_»th’e._property to the
said firn’ii”~by:’w.ay’:of.a’bi’p.artit’e-agreement to demoiish and
reconstruct complex and oniy for that
purpose, bathe v.deyeiVorper«s7have taken possession. In this
rega’«rd,__iA’the ian'(iio.r_dsv have obtained permission from the
‘ by this act the right of ownership does
mi;r-.riimmish.f1v ”
8. z in mind what is urged by both sides, I have
examined the records made availabie. Tenancy is admitted.
Aifherefore, vincuium juris of Eandlord and tenant is admitted
ii
6
between the parties. The fact that the old structure has
since been demolished and that the new structuregvin its
place has virtually come up is not in dispute. fl7h.e_,’te_rian’t’s
grievance is that there is no need to as
building is compieted and let out t0,rVdj,ri’o,us’A
other words, his contentiong,is_ thatthle ‘nee.dT.projecte.di inn,
the eviction petition is now loi’s.t”ior rendered’non-«existent.
But the contention ot:t’i<1_e portion in
occupation of the building and
is required for 'iliigressiiand regresisl'~and._._t.herefore, demolition
of the I do not find any ill-
motiveylorv sulchlvcontention. The evidence
on reclord” the entire property was a
composite unit_e’a’rliexr and the new structure comprising a
shVo”pVpih’g clonjplexvvllhlas come up. If the iandlords have felt
the-_ to’-demolish the old structure and make it
ac’cessi__bie.tollthe main complex, it merges with the original
need zavnd cannot be said to be lost. The finding of the trial
W.c’ou.rt based on evidence, I feel, needs no interference. In
(Ry
7
the result, the order of eviction passed by the trial court is
affirmed. The petition, therefore, must faii.
9. However, learned counsel for the petitiorilerlits-ub.mi_ts,_V
that the respondent is a widow wVithtwo .u’nen?}pio”y:ed,Vso:nsii
and is eking out her livelihood bv’».,seii-in’g3 ‘iarid
if she is ousted the enti=”e’«–..famiiy-._will l..dve,pVrVi\/edit
subsistence. Undoubtediy har’d«s:hip.,_to a’ extent is
inevitably caused cons–ed”ueri.t of eviction. But
how far it can be mitigat-e’d:’iihas_to seen”. Since the new
structure ha’si…alr«e’adyi.cornexup_,,_4lthe’rie’will be no hindrance to
the ‘schlediuiiefipremises is said to be on
the margin oflithe’~,bu»i,l,d’i~n§”. Being of this view, I feel the
petitioneréenantlc_an._be.§ranted eighteen months time from
tor,_i:a§§.r Quit Vaindvaczate the scheduie premises subject to
‘ f.oi’idi,tivo’ns lvlielreunder stated.
V__i.’~ii’_ti’ie result, the petition is disposed of in the
following; terms:
I) The petitioner–tenant shall file an affidavit
before the regisgbywithin three weeks from
Vg
11)
” 4′ s’tand~é” __ ‘
8
today undertaking to pay an the arrears, if any,
within four weeks from today, and aisoV.rno’i1th!y
rents es and when they accrue,
shalt vacate and hand over the~vp»re’rnivset§. to ..
Iandiord within eighteen
If the petitioner Vconisn»its .c}efau!t:i”n rents” V
for two conzsecutive–.rnenths, he”-w.i.ii: iose the
unexpired iperiodi-.,.§ran_tedV’r,§in.der this order,
enti–tiin.g theH;re§:po.ndent—-i’aI’;ci’iord to move the
execgition’-“of«’.the decree.
II’ii)= No.15S89/10 for stay
sag
323.539