-1- IN THE H154-4 coum' OF KARNATAKA AT DATED THIS me 11*" a>Aypr= wmzma _ f @ % BEFORE 5 * THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICEV5iiéHANA§H4§¢NTm§3;§;éOl3DAR"' % s--u2..:a.P. m;.73%/2djcs% «% Between : Popat Laldain ' 2. S/0 HastiJna_1.~ f = ' Age Major : _ _ P1'°P1'i€t0F.9f *¥:;.. , .. M13 Disflihumfa' V Shop N0v.2,._ii1IVF'1fJt3.I_'" '~ " _ 'Karim ctimplex' in V. portion of premises: ' .. No.730-734,"A.M. ' ' V Chic;1§;13éi.,.,I3a11gal<:§;:§9?,¥53.' ..Pc1:itio:1cr ,) 1. Smt. Farook Wig Azam Fazal » A Agcdéfiizout 32 years A 'N'q.117, Cunningham Road = opp cue: Ltd., Bangalore-25. S. Manoj Kumar Khandclwall S/o Sakalchand Khandeiwall Age Major Mfs. MP. Distributors Shop No.2, in I Floor 'Karim complex' in portion of premises No.73€}-734, A.M. Lane Chickpet, Banga1one~S3. _ " °' a (By Sn" Nagananci, Sr. Counsel) um»..- ...
This HRRP is flied under Sef Rent Act, 1999, (hereinafier referred. to
_ as ‘thé ;’k.(i1’t’.:.foVr short), praying for evicfion of the petitioner and
f6′::~;pofi.dent No.2 herein. Petitioner and Iespondcnt No.2
‘–««.’.1e1i;f:i11 have been carryixag can the business in the name and
” of MI s.M.P.Distributors and the rents are being paid in
< the name of M] s.M.P.{)istributors. Though the notice of
V"
– 3 –
eviction petition was served on petitioner and mspendcnft N.2
herein, they preferred to remain ex parte. The trial: by
holding an enquiry into the matter, aliowed the ‘
and d1ree’ ted the tenants to vacate ‘.the
revision petitican is filed by the ‘
2. Sn’ H.J.SanghVi. 1ea1ifie§”‘~.eeu1iee1_£ippeaJ ‘ 2 bn Behalf’ V
of the petitioner–tenant. eubm.ii:teci–. ‘that t1ie’~–}anc§i1ady has
neither proved her Ieqt1i§.9ee3:e3:1 ‘L pfeveti that she daes
not have any 1eaee1;abiy’VVS”1iit§2§}M*1_e’«ei§te:fi1a1;i£%e accommodation
to startivgher in textiles. He relies upon the
judg,menf”e_f the the case of K.N.ANANTHARAJA
Germ »–tfa- £i..9;’;rse’a mkramum am 2008 ac 539), in
. . °eupj:r0§1″tEdfhieeentefifiens. He further submits that the rate of
es the legal notice and the rate of rent as
stated in jeviefion petition. are entirely different and as the
‘lendIad3%_3’e coming with the false versions, her petition is liabie
V’ V.’-{obe efismiseed.
The revision petition is opposed by the landlady through
u her advocate Sri Naganand, learned Senior {lounge}, who inter
V4
_ 4 –
aiia contended that there is suffieieut materiai on to
show that the need of the landlady is just and
that she does not have Ieasenably ‘:::–;§iten1é1ti{?eb
accomxnodation for canying on the 1:b11si_Iie-3.3 L-€31 te§:tiIe$;.__
Both the learned advocates hiave”teken 1vee”th.tro;a§h. the
material on record and the judgeeent of S
3. The records ci:m1os;:”£1;a£ :4L’1i€’~.nefieeVVef’Afhe eviction’
pefition were duly served the tna’ 1 Court.
l~ioWevei’; The matter was adjourned
numbeffiof the evitlenoe. Thereafier, the
matter Wee3:gearc1V’aed._v£he:7e1der impugned is passed. During
«_ ‘*the___tevnant has not even made an attempt to
appfieeifien to set aside the order piecing him ex parte.
‘Hgfiee, below was jnsfified in pm-ceeding with the
-V Lz::Jat’.1ee1f.At1iefabsence of the tenant-petitioner herein.
” ~ ‘T A4. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the
~ dated 17.11.2009 vide EXP-7 issued by the landlady to
” ‘Vibe petitiener and respondent No.2 contending that the
monthly rent is only Rs.24()/- and not Re.713/- as stated in
– 5 –
the evieticsn petition. 011 the said basis, it is contended by the
tenants that the landlady has come up with the false veieiens.
The said statement cannot be accepted, inasmuch 43?-.3 is
dated 17.11.2000, Whereas, the eviction peueenieg {see {fie
year 2005. Therefexe, naturally thefe”wqu1;i 31.71 V’
the rents within the span of five
the landlady just prior to the of the “‘petition.”‘ V
Therefore, the said co,t1tentiqrx—— the tefiant: fiaxmot be
‘ accepted.
hie: in her eviction petition that
she requireteetlge vpxertxtsee the bonafide use of her husband
, Sn’ Fazal eS”heV__i§ants to (zany on the business in textiles
She has further submitted that the
is ideally suited for the need of her
V ~V huettend”*-Vte “iii-‘zve an outlet in the schedule premises to do the
H u “4”‘Vta11;3i11ess§V’i).1″ whelesale textiles. The said fact is afiirmed in the
filed by the power of attorney holder of the landlady, in
T ” which, it is eategexiealiy stated that the premises is needed to
U start the business in “textiles by Sri Azam Fazal, who is the
– .5 –
pcfifionefs husband and that the premises in quc§§tig:fi1T.is
highly suitable for the businmss of A2813} Fazal.
Explanation-I to Section 27 (gxr; of t1;e; it, A ‘
amply clear that, in case if the applica§,’tioIi’_’_i1k:*§d
for evictien under Section 27 (2){é;)_v’0f,.the ‘Actfi is. V
afidavit to the effect that the by the
iandlatiy for use and pr fer the fiamily
members dependenfi. on shall presume
that the pmmifieég Thus, it is
clear tha’ii fl1§*. favour of the llflfld of the
landlady A thé: is supported by an afliciavit
with riegagnito in this matter, adnflfiedty, the
an “”” H «avit in support of the eviction petition
as aforementioncd, she has Ieaffixmed
thatAs1:_V1e Aizhc pmnsisses bona fide ibr the purpose of
” iiv*}:fidilesalc businctss by her husband. Thus, it is :1 clear
xzziiercin the presumption shall be raised in favour of the
% of the landlady. Added to it the oral evidence of the
._4 .}1and1ady fully supports her case made out in the eviction
petition. The said presumption is. not rebutteaci by the tenant
fir/S
_ 7 ..
by adciucing the evidence. In the absence cf the
tenant, the Court below is justified in holding that me 5):”
the landlady is just and reasonable.
6. The submission made an of tfie tine u ‘
landlady has neither pleaded nor
reascsnabie. suitable acoommddeflan 1:1__.er,.u be»?
accepted. it is mandatuxjf on the “1a_x1{11p1Efi to Show
to the Court that the seat have any other
reaecmable suitahie Fer said purpcse, the
iandiord AV ..j§reI_y_’ Words, such as, “reasonably
suitabie “-iagfkiis pleadings or in the evidence.
The abaeflee ef the vsfortis éieasonably suitable amommodafion”
~’ = tI§e«:’p}e;’1di-figs of VfiE1e«v1anci}c3rd has to be gathered from the
enxtire’ record and the circumstances of the ease.
Net%e_1f;fhe1esL$;:§*.Vi:i; this matter, the landlady has pleaded that the
‘~$ehe{i111e”faremi$es is ideally suiteé for the need of her husband
,,,f{§V.he§g3 an outiet in the schedule premises to do the husinees
offwhoiesaie in textiles. Same is her version in her evidence
u which gases to Show that, except this property, no other
property is ideajly suited. Under such circumstances, in my
in”
– 3 ..
considervcti opinion, the landlady has proved that shsfloes not
have any other reasonably suitable altemative
to start the Wholesale business in textiles.
has not even denixed the said subn1*;ssio:z 1 1séid_e; ‘
before the Court below, Thus, the jflsfifisti
ordsiing eviction under “(i2)(r) of tIisé”;’§%:t_
7. in the notice as as on 17.11.2000
to the tenants, it is categgz-_1fj<?:z111yiv'stster;.i'~13 y' landlady that the
property in is:-.su.b1st "in.: fs'vom':«of M/s.Ro11ak Fabs
controls' to sxtzacjuted by the tenant in favour of
the ItV.V_is"-iodispute that the said notice was
served tiie on 20*' of November 2000. The
.' V. :EC'sot'o'Ais'"c1ear fi~oi,sL«vEx.P–7 itself. But, the tenant has not
s.ds1}isdA fact by sending reply to the effect that the
131*sz1;oisesv.iI');L'<;;uh;:stion is not subdeased in favour of M/s.Ronak
*.,F'abs. "I_n 3=£hc eviction petition, as Well as, in her evidence, the
has submitteci that the property in question is sub~
in favour of M/s.Ronak Fabs. If at all the said facts are
untrue, the tenant would have come forward to contest the
miatter. In view of the same, the order of eviction passed by the
fv»
, 9 ,
Court below cannot be found fault with. Cansequently, the
revision petifian is iiabie. to be dismésscd.
Acacnrdingly, the revision petifion is V' '2 V.
However, having regard to theHf:ot,a1it3_r– 'cf iZ-:ic't$ £!:ii<i'v .
circumstances of the cast, the petiiiioncr jés 'G:1e___
tzimet to vacate and deliver varf.a;;gt péS3¢'S3i:)nT.o:f" ;
finm the date of passing of tI1i§'o;xfde1f, ijgaymcnt of