Allowed

B Omprakash v. Prakash Chand

Karnataka HC12 Jan 2024HRRP/2/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Owners sought eviction of their tenant for arrears and bonafide requirement; the Small Causes Court dismissed the petition for failure to prove the quantum and start date of arrears. The High Court set aside that order, holding unchallenged evidence sufficient, and directed eviction.

What did the court decide?

Trial court's dismissal order set aside; eviction allowed; respondent to vacate within six months, continue paying rent, and pay Rs.25,000 litigation expenses.

B Omprakash Vs Prakash Chand — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:1737 HRRP No. 2 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024 BEFORE

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

¶4

HOUSE RENT REV. PETITION NO. 2 OF 2022 (EVI)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

B. OMPRAKASH, S/O LATE D. BASAVARAJU, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,

¶7

DR. MANJU PRAKASH, S/O LATE D. BASAVARAJU, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,

¶8

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.68, 4TH MAIN, 5TH CROSS, CHAMARAJPET, BENGALURU - 18.

¶9

…PETITIONERS

¶10

(BY SRI. ABHILASH H.S, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. JAYADEV B.S, ADVOCATE)

¶11

Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

AND:

¶13

PRAKASH CHAND, S/O LAKSHMILALJI BOHARA, AGED ABOUT YEARS, SHOP NO.5, GDB SHOPPING ARCADE, NO.7, D.K. LANE, CHICKPET CROSS, BENGALURU - 53.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(RESPONDENT - NOTICE SERVED)

¶16

THIS HRRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 46(1) OF THE KARNATAKA RENT ACT 1999, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:1737 HRRP No. 2 of 2022

¶19

18.09.2021 PASSED IN HRC.NO.14/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE CHIEF JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 27(2) (a) AND (r) OF THE KARNATAKA RENT ACT, 1999.

¶20

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

ORDER

¶22

This revision petition is filed by the owners of the petition schedule premises against the respondent for eviction by invoking provisions under Section 27(2)(a) and (r) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short), thereby the trial Court has dismissed the petition filed by the owners.

¶23

The facts in brief are that the revision petitioners are the owners of petition schedule premises and the schedule premises was let out to the respondent by an agreement dated 01.04.1984 for rent of Rs.401/per month. The respondent became default in payment of rent and hence, legal notice was issued on 04.05.2019 by terminating the tenancy from 07.07.2019. Despite issuing

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:1737 HRRP No. 2 of 2022

¶25

legal notice, the respondent has not vacated the premises. Therefore, the petitioners are constrained to file petition by invoking provisions of Section 27(2)(a) and (r) of the Act. The trial Court has dismissed the petition on the ground that the petitioners have failed to prove the quantum of arrears of rent and from which date, the respondent is in arrears of rent. Therefore, the petitioners are before this Court praying to allow the petition.

¶26

Notice issued to the respondent is served but

¶27

he has remained absent before this Court as well as before the trial Court. Therefore, he is placed exparte.

¶28

The trial Court has dismissed the petition by assigning the reasons by recording findings that the petitioners have failed to prove the quantum of arrears of rent and from which date the respondent is in arrears of rent, even in Ex.P.1 – Notice, they have not demanded for arrears of rent. The tenancy was terminated as per Ex.P.1 from 07.07.2019, but in the petition they have sought for arrears of rent from January, 2019 upto 07.07.2019. Even

¶29

¶30

NC: 2024:KHC:1737 HRRP No. 2 of 2022

¶31

in the chief examination of PW-1, he has deposed that the respondent has stopped payment and not pleaded from which date the rent is due.

¶32

Ex.P.1 is the legal notice issued on 04.05.2019

¶33

by the petitioners requesting the respondent to vacate the premises by stating that they require premises for their own use and for their family members. The said legal notice was served on the respondent as per Ex.P.2. Ex.P.5

¶34

is the lease agreement dated 01.04.1984, which shows that the petitioners are owners of the premises and respondent is the tenant. The relationship of petitioners and respondent as owners and tenant is not disputed. It is averred in the evidence of the petitioner No.2 i.e., PW-1 that from January, 2019, the respondent is not paying the rent, which is not controverted by the respondent. The respondent has remained absent and has not contested the petition. Therefore, the evidence let in by the petitioners is that the respondent is not paying the rent from January, 2019, is unchallenged and the same can be

¶35

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:1737 HRRP No. 2 of 2022

¶36

believed and considered. This is the requirement to be proved by the petitioners.

¶37

On another ground, the petitioners sought for premises as per Section 27(2) (r) of the Act that they require the petition schedule premises for themselves or their family members for functioning any activities. The explanation given to the Section 27(2)(r) is regarding where the owner in his application supported by an affidavit submits that the premises is required by him for occupation for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, the Court shall presume that the premises are so required. If affidavit is not filed, then it cannot be said that the owner is not entitled for premises. Filing of affidavit raises presumption. If not filed then the owner shall prove by independent evidence regarding bonafide requirement.

¶38

Inspite of filing an affidavit, the owner has to

¶39

prove that the petition schedule premises is required for his own use or for his family members. The petitioners

¶40

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:1737 HRRP No. 2 of 2022

¶41

have pleaded in the petition that the petition schedule premises is required for his own use or his family members and it is supported by the verifying affidavit by the petitioners. The said averment in the petition is not challenged by the respondent. The respondent remained absent. Therefore, the petitioners have proved that the respondent is in arrears of rent amount from the month of January’ 2019. Hence, requirement of Section 27(2) (a) and 27 (2) (r) is proved and the petitioners’ contentions remained unchallenged. Therefore, it is proved that the premises is required by the petitioners for his own use or by his family members and therefore, section 27(2)(r) is also proved. On these grounds, the petition filed by the petitioners is liable to be allowed by directing the respondent to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the premises to the petitioner. Hence, the impugned order is hereby set aside by allowing the petition. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:-

¶42

ORDER

¶43

i. The petition is allowed .

¶44

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:1737 HRRP No. 2 of 2022

¶45

ii. The order dated 18.09.2021 passed by the Chief Judge, Court of Small causes, Bengaluru, in HRC No.14/2020 is hereby set aside.

¶46

iii. The respondent is directed to vacate the petition schedule premises and hand over vacant possession of the schedule premises to the petitioners within a period of six months from today.

¶47

iv. The respondent shall continue to pay the rent amount as per agreement.

¶48

v. No order as to costs.

¶49

vi. The respondent shall pay litigation expenses of Rs.25,000/to the petitioners.

¶50

Sd/JUDGE

¶51

MH/-

¶52

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31 CT: BHK

B Omprakash v. Prakash Chand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B Omprakash v. Prakash Chand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abdul Mujeeb Vs Aafreen Taj

Smt Sannamma Vs Smt Jayasheelamma

Smt Janakamma Vs Sri Javarappa

Smt Vijaya Vs Logostices Pvt.Ltd.

Smt Anitha v Shetty Vs Sri Dinakar v Shetty

Sri. Mahadevaswamy Vs Smt. Sudha @ Chikkasudha