Partly allowed

Smt Vasantha v. Sri Parameshwaran

Karnataka HC11 Sept 2024HRRP/21/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Tenant's second revision against eviction ordered under the Karnataka Rent Act on grounds of rent arrears and bona fide requirement. Court set aside the arrears-based eviction as rent was paid and time had not been given, but confirmed eviction for bona fide use, granting time to vacate.

What did the court decide?

Eviction under Section 27(2)(a) set aside; eviction under Section 27(2)(r) confirmed with time till 31 October 2024 to vacate; deposit permitted to be withdrawn by landlord.

Smt Vasantha Vs Sri Parameshwaran — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:37426 HRRP No. 21 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA HOUSE RENT REV. PETITION NO.21 OF 2022

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT VASANTHA W/O LATE POOBALAN AGED 72 YEARS R/AT NO.1467/1 BALAKRISHNA LAYOUT MINI IBRAHIM ROAD ROBERTSONPET, K G F KOLAR DISTRICT

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI M B CHANDRA CHOODA, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by MALATESH K C

¶12

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

SRI PARAMESHWARAN S/O LATE M LOGANATHAN AGED 56 YEARS R/AT PEDDAPALLI MAIN ROAD OORGAUMPET POST K G F KOLAR DISTRICT.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI R.P.SOMASHEKHARAIAH FOR SMT.HEMALATHA D, ADVOCATES)

¶16

THIS HRRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 46(1) OF THE KARNATAKA RENT ACT, 1999 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18.08.2022 PASSED IN RR.NO.1/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KOLAR (SITTING AT KGF), DISMISSING THE RENT REVISION PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 46 OF THE KARNATAKA RENT ACT 1999.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:37426 HRRP No. 21 of 2022

¶19

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶20

ORAL ORDER

¶21

Heard Sri M.B. Chandrachooda, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri R.P. Somashekaraiah, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent.

¶22

Tenant’s second revision challenging the order dated 28.01.2020, passed in HRC No.08/2014, on the file of I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC., KGF and confirmed in rent revision No.01/2020, dated 18.08.2022, on the file of III Additional District Judge, Kolar (Sitting at KGF).

¶23

Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the revision petition are as under:

¶24

An eviction petition came to be filed by the respondent herein under Section 27 (2) (a) and (r) of the Karnataka Rent Act 1999, which on contest came to be allowed. There was no proper determination of the arrears of rent, but the operative portion of the order would go to show that the respondent is directed to pay arrears of rent at the rate of Rs.400/- per month from 2009 and no time was granted so as to pass the order of eviction under Section 27 (2) (a) of the Karnataka

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:37426 HRRP No. 21 of 2022

¶26

Rent Act, 1999. Being aggrieved by the said order, revision petitioner has filed petition before the District Court, Kolar, sitting at KGF. The said revision petition on contest came to be dismissed by order dated 18.08.2022.

¶27

Being further aggrieved by the same, tenant has filed this second revision before this Court.

¶28

Sri M.B. Chandrachooda, learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that both the Courts have not understood the scope under Section 27 (2) (a) and (r) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 and wrongly passed the order of eviction against the revision petitioner herein and sought for allowing the revision.

¶29

He further contended that the order of the learned Trial Judge in not granting time to pay the arrears of rent and allowing the eviction petition under Section 27 (2) (a) and (r) and confirmed by the Rent Revision Court is incorrect.

¶30

Insofar as Section 27 (2) (r) is concerned, learned counsel for petitioner contended that the owner of the property has agreed to sell the property in favour of third party and there was an agreement entered into in this regard and therefore, bona fide use by the landlord and for which the

¶31

¶32

NC: 2024:KHC:37426 HRRP No. 21 of 2022

¶33

eviction was sought for is not at all available to the landlord and sought for allowing the revision.

¶34

Per contra, Sri R.P. Somashekaraiah, learned counsel for the landlord supports the impugned judgment.

¶35

He further contends that the agreement referred to by the revision petitioner is cancelled and property as on today still stands in the name of landlord and he has no intention to sell the same and therefore, the revision petition is to be dismissed.

¶36

Insofar as arrears of the rent is concerned, Sri Somashekaraiah, has contended that even after passing the orders, the tenant is in arrears and he did not pay the rents as and when accrued and therefore, the eviction under Section 27 (2) (a) of Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 is also to be maintained.

¶37

Having heard the parties, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.

¶38

On such perusal of material on record, it is crystal clear that there is no dispute as to the relationship between the parties.

¶39

¶40

NC: 2024:KHC:37426 HRRP No. 21 of 2022

¶41

Admittedly, there was arrears of rent which was ordered to be paid on and from May, 2009 in the order of the learned Civil Judge.

¶42

However, there is some force in the arguments put forth on behalf of the revision petitioner that mere fact that tenant is in arrears of rent itself would not allow the landlord to seek an eviction. After adjudging the arrears of rent time should have been granted by the learned Trial Judge for payment of rent as per the provisions of Karnataka Rent Act, 1999. Failing which, the eviction should have been ordered. Therefore, the eviction order under Section 27 (2) (a) needs to be set aside.

¶43

But, insofar as Section 27 (2) (r) is concerned, landlord enjoys the presumption that he needs the premises for bona-fide use and occupation. All that the landlord is required therefore, is to enter into the witness box and make a statement on oath that he requires the premises for bona-fide use. Said burden has been discharged by the landlord in the case on hand.

¶44

On careful perusal of the presumption, it is seen that it is a rebuttable presumption. Therefore, tenant was

¶45

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:37426 HRRP No. 21 of 2022

¶46

required to rebut the same by placing cogent evidence on record.

¶47

In the case on hand, no such evidence is forthcoming on record, which would be sufficient enough to rebut the presumption. Plea of tenant that landlord has sold the petition property without any proof.

¶48

Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the eviction order passed under Section 27 (2) (r) needs to be confirmed.

¶49

Accordingly, following:

¶50

ORDER

¶51

(i) Revision petition is allowed in part.

¶52

(ii) Eviction of the revision petitioner under Section 27 (2) (a) of Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 is set aside as entire arrears of rent has been paid by the tenant at the time of filing the present revision petition.

¶53

(iii) Eviction of the tenant/revision petition from the petition premises under Section 27 (2) (r) of Karnataka Rent Act, 1999is hereby confirmed.

¶54

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:37426 HRRP No. 21 of 2022

¶55

(iv) Taking note of the fact that reasonable time is to be granted for the tenant to vacate and hand over the premises. Time is granted till 31^st of October, 2024.

¶56

(v) Amount in deposit is ordered to be withdrawn by the respondent/landlord under due identification.

¶57

Sd/(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE

¶58

¶59

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 5

Smt Vasantha v. Sri Parameshwaran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Vasantha v. Sri Parameshwaran

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

Sri Gunda @ Thimmarayappa Vs Sri M N Vijendra

Sri. Nagaraja Vs M/S. Solomon David Holdings Private Ltd.

Sri D C Ravikumar Vs Sri Ravikumar

Smt Padmavati @ Padma J Vs Smt Ammayamma

Sri B P Mohankumar Vs B.P.Ramesh

Sri. K.N. Dayananda Murthy Vs the Secretary