Smt. Vinutha W/O Madhukar Haldipur vs. N V Vikram S/O N V Anantharaman
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioners, Smt. Vinutha and others, are landlords who filed a petition seeking vacant possession of the petition premises and recovery of arrears of rent amounting to ₹5,040/-. They claim to have purchased the premises on December 7, 1987, from the previous owner, Smt. Parvathevva. The respondents, claiming to be tenants, had previously filed a suit against Smt. Parvathevva, alleging she executed a sale deed in their favor, and impleaded the present petitioner as a defendant. That suit was decreed by the trial court but set aside on appeal by this High Court on August 18, 2009, on the grounds that the respondents were not ready and willing to perform their part of the obligations. The petitioners contend that despite this, the respondents have not paid rent since 1982. The petitioner intends to shift his business from Chennai to Hubballi and requires the premises for his business and residence. The trial court allowed the petition, which was confirmed by the revisional court.
Held
The Court held that the petitioner has established the ground for eviction under Section 27(2)(r) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999. The petitioner demonstrated a genuine need for the premises for his business and residence, having shifted his operations from Chennai. The Court noted that the petitioner's GST registration (Ex.P-14) supported his claim of running a business in Chennai. The Court found that the respondents failed to rebut the presumption under Explanation 1 to Section 27(2)(r) of the Karnataka Rent Act, which states that if the landlord submits an affidavit stating the premises are required for his occupation or that of his family, the Court shall presume such requirement, shifting the burden of proof to the tenant. The Court distinguished the Supreme Court decision relied upon by the respondents, as it pertained to a different Act. The Court also found that the respondents had not questioned the quantum of rent claimed. Therefore, the trial court was justified in allowing the petition and directing the respondents to pay arrears of rent and vacate the premises. The revisional court's confirmation of this order was also found to be without error.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner has established the ground for eviction under Section 27(2)(r) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, for bona fide requirement of the premises for his business and residence? 2. Whether the respondents have successfully rebutted the presumption that the premises are required by the landlord for his occupation, as provided under Explanation 1 to Section 27(2)(r) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that he requires the premises for his bona fide business and residential needs, having shifted his business from Chennai. He presented GST registration (Ex.P-14) to establish his business operations in Chennai. He also contended that the respondents have failed to prove they have any other suitable accommodation and that the presumption under Section 27(2)(r) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, shifts the burden of proof to the tenant. The petitioner relied on the cases of M. Javerilal Vs. N. Achalraj Jain and P. Vaman Kini Vs U. Ramachandra Pai. Respondent's arguments: The respondents argued that a mere desire of the landlord is insufficient and the burden is on the landlord to show genuine requirement. They relied on a Supreme Court decision interpreting Section 12(1)(f) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, in support of their contention. They also questioned the petitioner's claim of ownership and the validity of the sale agreement.
Sections Cited
Section 27(2)(r), Section 53A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
CAV ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA)
This revision petition is directed against the order dated 11th August, 2022 passed in RCA No.29 of 2009 by I Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Hubballi (for short “the trial Court”), which is confirmed by the I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Dharwad sitting at Hubballi (for short “the Revisional Court”) in RR No.5002 of 2022 dated 20th March, 2025. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.
Petitioner, who is respondent herein, filed petition seeking vacant possession of the petition premises and for
- 3 - recovery of arrears of rent of ₹5,040/- and also future mesne profits. It is stated in the petition that petitioner is the owner and landlord of the petition premises. Originally, the said property belonged to one Siddalingappa Ishwarappa Bulla. The predecessor of the respondents by name Dr. Panduranga Haldipur and Dr. R.G. Koppikar had taken portion of the petition premises for rent from the original owner in the year 1936-37 on a monthly rent of Rs.40/-. Accordingly, the tenants were residing in the suit premises till the year 1972. It is the further case of the petitioner that original owner, Sri Siddalingappa I. Bulla had gifted the entire premises in favour of his wife, Smt. Parvatevva S. Bulla. Therefore, the predecessor of the respondents have attorned the tenants in favour of Parvathevva and they were paying rent to her regularly. The rent of Rs.40/- was also enhanced to Rs.140/- later on. Respondents were paying rent to Smt. Parvathevva till the year 1982. After the death of Dr. Panduranga Haldipur, respondents have started to reside in the petition premises as tenants. It is the further case of the petitioner that he had purchased the suit premises on 07th December, 1987 from its previous owner, Smt. Parvathevva and had also informed the respondent through notice dated 26th December, 1987 that she had sold the petition
- 4 - premises to the petitioner and directed the respondents to pay the rent to him. Thereafter, the petitioner had also requested the respondent to pay rent to him. However, the respondents failed to pay the rent. Respondents filed a suit before the court of Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Hubballi in the year 1988 against the previous owner-Smt. Parvethevva on the ground that she had executed a sale deed in favour of them. The respondents have also made the present petitioner as defendant No.2 in the said suit. The said suit was decreed by the trial Court, which in appeal before this Court in RFA No.418 of 1998, was set aside vide Judgment dated 18th August, 2009 on the ground that respondents were not ready and willing to perform their part of obligations. Accordingly, judgment and decree passed by the trial Court was set aside. Therefore, execution of sale in favour of the petitioner is made as absolute and the petitioner is owner of the entire premises. Even after the dismissal of the suit filed by the respondents, they have not paid rent to the petitioner. It is the further case of the petitioner that one Sri Kotre who is tenant in the first floor of the premises, had vacated and handed over vacant position in favour of the petitioner. Now the petitioner and his son are doing business in the first floor of the premises. The petitioner is a senior citizen and is unable to
- 5 - carry out business while residing away from the petition premises. As such, he intends to shift his house from Keshwapur to petition premises. The petition premises would be more convenient for the petitioner to carry out business and it is required for bona fide use of the petitioner. During the pendency of the petition, original petitioner died and his grandson came on record and got amended the petition wherein he has stated that after Graduation, he took up a job and started his own business in the name and style as “Ananda Print Solutions”. But after lockdown, business of the petitioner became dull and the petitioner intends to shift his business to his hometown. His parents are also residing in the petition premises and as such petition premises is required for the petitioner to run his business as well as for his residence. Respondents have not paid any rent to the petition premises since 1982. Petitioner has restricted his claim of rent only for a period of three years and hence claiming rent of Rs.5,040/- as arrears. The petitioner has also issued legal notice to the respondents on 30th October, 2009 to handover the vacant position of the petition premises along with arrears of rent. The said notices were served on respondents. In spite of it, respondents have failed to handover the vacant possession of
- 6 - the petition premises to the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner has filed the petition. Petitioner has filed rejoinder and contended that the suit filed by the respondents was dismissed on the ground that they are not ready to perform their part of contract. Therefore, the respondents are in possession of petition premises as tenants and not as purchasers on the basis of the sale agreement. The sale agreement alleged to have been executed by Smt. Parvathevva, does not disclose delivery of possession in favour of respondent. The petitioner had filed one more rejoinder contending that the application filed by respondents under Section 43 of Karnataka Rent Act was dismissed by the trial Court as well as the Revisional Court. Therefore, now respondents cannot re-agitate the said matter.
Respondents 1 to 3 appeared before the Court through their Counsel and filed written statement contending that petitioner had filed a false, frivolous and illegal petition which is not maintainable either in law or on facts and the same is liable to be dismissed. It is admitted that originally suit schedule premises belonged to one Siddalingappa I. Bulla and it was gifted by him in favour of his wife. They have also admitted that they are the tenants under him. It is contended that the
- 7 - Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Hubballi passed judgment and decree dated 17th March, 1998 in OS No.391 of 1988, holding that the petitioner is not a purchaser of the property and therefore, petitioner is not entitled to take a contention that he is the owner of the petition premises. Respondents have further contended that Smt. Parvathevva had executed an agreement of sale in favour of respondents on 17th June, 1985, for sale consideration of Rs.4,00,000/-. The said Parvathevva also received an advance sale consideration of Rs.1,00,000/- from respondent on the date of execution of sale agreement. The said execution of sale agreement was held as legal and valid in judgment and decree passed in OS No.391 of 1988 as well as before this Court in RFA No.418 of 1998. The respondents are in possession of the petition premises, not as tenants but as purchasers of the suit premises under agreement of sale dated 17th June, 1985. It was also agreed by Smt. Parvethavva that these respondents are not liable to pay any rent in respect of petition premises as she had already executed a sale agreement and delivered possession of the petition premises. It is further contended that respondents have informed the petitioner not to purchase the petition premises as the owner had already executed a sale agreement in favour of them on 17th June,
- 8 - 1985. In spite of it, petitioner had filed petition on the basis of bogus sale deed only to cause harassment and loss to respondents. Further, it stated that on the basis of collusive and bogus sale deed, petitioner with one Sri R.V. Kotre, got a compromise decree and the vacant possession of the first floor from said Sri Kotre during the pendency of Suit in OS No.39 of 1998. The appeal preferred by Smt. Parvathevva and petitioner against respondent and Sri R.V. Kotre, was allowed. However, agreement of sale existing in favour of the respondent was held as barred. It is stated that the High Court has allowed the petition on the technical ground that respondents have failed to prove the readiness and willingness. In spite of these issues, the High Court has not given any finding. The trial Court had already given its finding, including the issue regarding bona fide purchaser of the suit property. The said decision has not been set aside by the High Court. Therefore, petitioner is neither owner nor a landlord of the petition premises. Petitioner has filed this petition with an intention to harass the respondents. It is further contended that the petitioner had filed HRC No.138 of 1998 against the respondent in the court of Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Hubbali, praying to evict the respondents and handover the vacant possession of the suit premises. The said
- 9 - case was filed during the pendency of Original Suit No.381 of 1988 before the Principal Civil Judge, Hubballi. The said suit filed on 15th February, 1998 and petition in HRC No.138 of 1998 subsequently came to be dismissed for default. In view of the said order passed in HRC No.138 of 1988, present RCA is not maintainable under Order IX Rule 9 of Code of Civil Procedure and it amounts to constructive resjudicata. On all these grounds, it was sought for dismissal of the petition.
To prove the case, petitioner examined four witnesses as PWs1 to 4 and got marked fourteen documents as Exhibits P1 to P14. On closure of petitioner side evidence, one witness was examined on behalf of respondent as RW1 and eight documents were marked as Exhibits R1 to R8. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the trial Court allowed the petition filed under Section 27(2)(r) of Karnataka Rent Act and directed the respondents to vacate and deliver the physical possession of the petition premises to the petitioner within two months from the date of the order. Being aggrieved by the said order passed by the trial Court, respondents preferred RR No.5002 of 2022, before the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad, sitting at Hubballi. By judgment dated 20th March, 2025, the
- 10 - Revisional Court dismissed the revision petition. Being aggrieved by the order passed by both the courts below, the respondents have preferred this revision petition.
Sri V.M. Sheelvant, learned Counsel appearing for revision petitioners would submit that the original owner of the schedule premises has executed agreement of sale in favour of revision petitioners on 17th June, 1985, and has confirmed the possession of the petitioners. Later, the original owner had sold the property in question to the respondent. Based on the agreement of sale, petitioners had instituted for specific performance of contract and also for declaration that they are the owners of the open space and restraining respondent from interfering with the position of suit property in OS number 391 of 1988. The said suit was decreed as prayed for by the petitioners. However, in the suit, Issue No.5 framed as to whether the defendant No.2 is a bona fide purchaser? is answered in the negative. That it is held that defendant No.2 is not a bona fide purchaser and as such he is not the owner of the property in question. The defendant preferred an appeal before the High Court in RFA No.418 of 1998. Whereas this court ordered for refund of earnest money by reversing the
- 11 - judgment and decree of the trial Court. However, the finding on issue No.5 that the respondent is not a bona fide purchaser, remained intact.
It is further submitted that the petitioner had filed application IA No.6 in RCA No.29 of 2009, seeking stay of proceedings and to direct respondent to competent civil court for declaring their rights. The application was dismissed against the HRP No.521 of 2013 was filed before this Court. The said HRRP came to be dismissed vide order dated 13th February, 2017. The said order was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP No.16935 of 2017. But, petitioners have withdrawn the Special Leave Petition with liberty to take recourse to any other available remedy. Petitioners after disposal of the Special Leave Petition, have filed OS No.551 of 2017 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Hubballi for declaration against the respondent herein that the petitioners have right to be in lawful possession of the suit property on the basis of agreement of sale dated 17th June, 1985, and also on the basis of the finding given in OS No.391 of 1988 and the same is pending. He would submit that the both the Courts have not properly appreciated the material on record in
- 12 - accordance with law and facts, and accordingly sought to allow the revision petition.
As against this Smt. G. Meera Bai, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the impugned order passed by the Court below which is affirmed by the Revisional Court is based on the facts and in accordance with law and the same does not call for interference.
A perusal of judgment passed by the revisional Court reveals that the present revision petitioners have taken all the contentions that are urged before this Court before the revisional Court in RR No.5002 of 2023. The Revisional Court has considered all the arguments advanced on behalf of the Revision Petitioners and has assigned reasons at paragraphs 28 to 49 of its judgment. The same reads thus:
The counsel for petitioner (Respondent here in) argued that since the Hon’ble High Court set aside the entire Judgment and decree dated : 17-03-1998 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Hubballi in O.S. No.391/1988 the entire Judgment and decree passed by the Senior Civil Judge becomes non est and in view of the setting aside of the entire Judgment by the Hon’s High Court, the findings on Issue No. 5 by the Senior Civil Judge in the said case will not survive. She further argued that the original petitioner N. A.
- 13 - Ananth Raman bequeathed the petition schedule premises to the impleaded petitioner N. A. Vikram as per Ex.P-13 Will. She further argued that the attesting witnesses to Ex.P-13 Will examined before the trial court as P.W.3 and by virtue of the said Will subsequently impleaded petitioner has become the owner of the petition schedule property.
The respondents contends that the landlord and tenant relationship between the respondents and previous owner Smt.Parvatewwa come to an end on the date of Ex.R- 1 agreement for sale ie on 17-06-1985. Now the question arises for the consideration of this court is whether the respondents are entitled to claim protection under Section 53-A of T P Act despite of setting aside of decree of specific performance by the Hon’ble High Court in RFA No. 418/1998 ? In this regard, it is necessary to consider the scope of Section 53-A of TPAct. Section 53-A of TP Act reads as under: 53A. Part performance: Where any person contracts to transfer for consideration any immoveable property by writing signed by him or on his behalf from which the terms necessary to constitute the transfer can be ascertained with reasonable certainty, and the transferee has, in part performance of the contract, taken possession of the property or any part thereof, or the transferee, being already in possession, continues in possession in part performance of the contract and has done some act in furtherance of the contract, and the transferee has performed or is willing to perform his part of the contract,
- 14 - then, notwithstanding that where there is an instrument of transfer, that the transfer has not been completed in the manner prescribed therefor by the law for the time being in force, the transferor or any person claiming under him shall be debarred from enforcing against the transferee and persons claiming under him any right in respect of the property of which the transferee has taken or continued in possession, other than a right expressly provided by the terms of the contract: Provided that nothing in this section shall affect the rights of a transferee for consideration who has no notice of the contract or of the part performance thereof. From the bare reading of section 53-A of TP Act is clear that the party who is in possession of the property on the basis of sale agreement is not entitled for the benefit under said provision if he fails to prove his readiness and willingness to purchase the petition schedule property.
It is pertinent to note that in the Judgment passed by Hon’ble High Court in RFA No. 418/1998 it has been held that the respondents have failed to prove their readiness and willingness to perform their part of contract and hence they are not entitled for specific performance of the Ex.R-1 LRS decided by the Hon’ble Apex court on 21-03-2017 in Civil appeal No. 4311-4312 it has been clarified that : “ A tenant cannot claim protection under Section 53-A of TP Act if they fail to prove the execution of sale
- 15 - agreement and their readiness and willingness to purchase the property.”
Section 53-A of T P Act would not be available, if the transferee remains passive without taking effective steps and abstains from performing his part of the contract or conveying his readiness and willingness to that effect.
The Hon’ble High Court in the Judgment dated : 18- 08-2009 passed in RFA No. 418/1998 at para No. 22 has observed that : “The very fact that the suit for bare injunction is filed after the sale and reply notice was sent only on 09-03-1998 clearly shows that the plaintiff (Revision Petitioners herein) was not ready and willing to perform his part of contract. He should have at least shown by Ugadi of 1986, he was ready with Rs.1,00,000/-. No evidence is adduced in this regard.”
Further in para No. 23 of the said Judgment the Hon’ble High Court observed as under :
“23. Under these circumstances we are satisfied that the plea of readiness and willingness has remained as a plea and it is not proved by acceptable evidence. The trial court committed a serious error in holding that plaintiffs’ eviction is not disputed and therefore it has been proved. The said finding runs contrary to the mandatory
- 16 - requirements of Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act and the settled legal position for decades. Therefore the finding recorded by the trial court that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of contract cannot be sustained.” 35. reported in AIR 2003 SC 2271 it was held that : “Tenant claimed possession of the property and sought part performance, the suit for specific performance however was rejected by the court, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that because the tenant failed to provide any evidence of acts taken to carry out the agreement the operation of Section 53-A of T P Act would not be permissible”
During the pendency of RCA No. 29/2009 the respondents filed application under Section 43(1) and (2) of Karnataka Rent act to stop the proceedings. The said application was dismissed by the trial court and District court. Against the said order the respondent preferred the appeal before Hon’ble High Court of Karantaka. The Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka dismissed the said appeal and it was reported in ILR 2017 Kar 2717 wherein in para No. 22 it is held that : “In the fact situation that is not the case. The petitioners herein were tenants prior to 17-06- 1985, by virtue of some amount was paid as advance, a concession of not paying the rent was shown to them. IN any event it was not held that
- 17 - their possession is in part performance of agreement of sale. Therefore they cannot claim that benefit, which they had not claimed in any place either in the original suit in O.S. No. 391/1988 or in RFA No.418/1998 which was filed by the landlord along with subsequent purchaser. In that view of the matter when agreement of sale has reached finality in SLP No. 37875/2009 being dismissed, he would revert back to the position as it stood prior to 17-06-1985. Therefore he should be considered as tenant now.” The said decision arose out of this proceeding. The Hon’ble High court in the said decision had already decided that the petitioner is the landlord and the respondents are tenants. After the death of the original petitioner the present petitioner came on record on the basis of the Will executed by the earlier petitioner. The said Will is marked at Ex.P-13. In order to prove the Will as per provision of 68 of Evidence Act petitioner got examined one of the attesting witnesses of Ex.P-13 Will as PW3. P.W.3 in his evidence deposed regarding execution of the Will by the original petitioner in favour of the present petitioner before the trial court. Though P.W.3 was cross examined in length nothing was elicited with regard to non-compliance of attestation and the petitioner has proved the execution of Ex.P-13 Will in his favour in respect of the petition schedule property. Since the decree of specific performance has been set aside by Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the judgment passed in RFA No.418/1998 the citation relied upon by the respondents
- 18 - reported in 2009(3) KLJ 319 is not applicable to the facts of ILR 2004 Karnataka 4782 it was held as under : A) The transfer of Property Act 1882 – Section 109- Karnataka Rent Act 1999 – sec 3(e) and 46(1)- The Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – sec, 109 – Right of Transferee under – Held- In view of transfer of ownership, the transferee becomes the owner of the premises-The tenant cannot dispute the right of the transferee land lord to maintain an Eviction petition under the Rent Act or to claim rent Attornment by the tenant is unnecessary to confer validity to the transfer of the lessor’s rights – Section 109 protects payments of rent by the tenant to the transferor without notice of the transfer, as section 109 creates a statutory attornment. B) Karnataka Rent Act 1999. Section 3(e) Definition of Landlord under Held- The definition signify that the transfer of interest of the landlord in favour of any other person is not prohibited. The transferee of a lessor is entitled to collect rent in terms of the lease as of right and becomes landlord under Sec. 3(e) of the Act. From the aforesaid decision and Section 109 of T P Act it is clear that in view of the transfer of ownership the transferee becomes the owner of the petition schedule premises. In this case, by virtue of the sale deed executed
- 19 - by Parvatewwa , original petitioner Ananth Raman has become the owner and landlord of the premises and subsequently on the death of original petitioner by virtue of Ex.P-13 Will executed by the original petitioner in favour of present petitioner before the trial court, the present petitioner has become the owner and landlord of the petition schedule premises.
Hence the trial Court is justified in holding that the petitioner has established the relationship of landlord and tenant between himself and respondents. Hence, Point No. 1 is answered in the Affirmative.
POINT NO.2 :- The counsel for Revision Petitioners/ Respondents before trial Court has argued that the petition premises is not required by the petitioner for bonafide use. He further argued that mere assertion on the part of the petitioner that he requires the premises for starting his business and for his residential purpose is not sufficient. He further argued that to make out a ground for eviction under Sec.27(2)(r) of Karnataka Rent Act mere desire on the part of the landlord to occupy the premises is not enough and he should prove that the petition premises genuinely requires for his residential and business purpose but the petitioner has failed to prove that he genuinely requires the petition schedule premises for his residential and business purposes.
The original petitioner N. A. Ananth Raman died during the pendency of the case before trial Court and the impleaded petitioner got amended the petition wherein he has urged that after graduation he took a job and started his own business in the name and style ‘Andhra Print Solutions’ and after lock down the business of the petitioner has
- 20 - become dull and he intends to shift his business and his residence to the petition schedule premises. The petitioner got examined his father P.W.4 who is none other than the son of original petitioner. P.W.4 in his affidavit filed towards examination-inchief has stated that his father N. A. Ananth Raman filed this petition in the year 2009 for his bonafide use and occupation. He stated that due to Covid-19 his son present petitioner suffered huge loss in the business and hence he intends to run his business in the petition schedule premises and the petitioner is in genuine need of petition schedule premises for his business and residence. Even though P.w.4 was cross examined in length nothing is elicited to show that the petitioner does not need the petition schedule premises for his residential and business purpose.
The counsel for the petitioner before the trial Court has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Another wherein in para No. 17 it was held that : “In so far as establishing the requirement under Section 27(2) (r) of the Act is concerned, it is sufficient if the landlord has indicated that the premises is required for use and occupation of himself or any member of his family. Even assuming that they were tow owners as petitioners and are joint owners, if requirement of any one joint owner is established, that requirement is sufficient to pass an order of eviction as against the tenant. When a landlord can maintain a petition for requirement of any member of
- 21 - his family, it can equally so if two joint owners present the eviction petition. The requirement of one joint owner constitutes the requirement of all petitioners. The only situation where the landlord can be denied relief and the Court can refuse passing an order of eviction against the tenant under Section 27(2)(r) is when the Court finds that the landlord or the person for whose requirement the petition schedule premises is sought, for has some other reasonably suitable accommodation.”
In this case the petitioner wants to shift his business from Chennai to Hubballi. The present petitioner who got examined himself as P.W.2 has produced the Ex.P-14 Registration Certificate of GST which establishes that he is running the business at Chennai under the name and style “ M/s. Andhra Print Solution”.
It is pertinent to note that the proceedings under Karnataka Rent Act is a summary proceeding and as such strict rules of pleadings are not required. The petitioner in the amended petition pleaded that he requires the petition schedule premises for his business and residential purposes. As per Section 27(2)(r) of Karnataka Rent Act it is sufficient for the petitioner to show that the premises is required for the use and occupation of himself and any other member of his family. The petitioner has proved before the trial Court that he has no other suitable accommodation for his present requirement. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner has other suitable accommodation in the area of the petition premises. 44. reported in 2005 1 Kar.LJ 76 it has been held as follows : “(B) Karnataka Rent Act 1999 Section 27(20)(r) -Availability of alternative premises – it is no doubt true that particular shop might have come in possession of the petitioner but that by itself cannot be said that the said premises is available and can be termed as an alternate suitable premises. Time and again it has been stated it is not open to the tenant to dictate the landlord how he should carry on business or where he should carry on and where and how he should reside, that falls in the requirement of the landlord” 46. reported in AIR 1985 Kant 23 (DB) it was held as under : A. Karnataka Rent Control Act 1961 (22 of 1961) Sections 5 and 21(1)(h)- eviction landlord can seek eviction of tenant from non-residential premises if such premises are required for business of the firm of which he is partner.
In this case the petitioner has proved that the petition premises is required for running his business and the respondents have failed to rebut the same.
The counsel for respondent in support of his contention that mere desire of the landlord is not sufficient and the burden is on the landlord to show that he genuinely requires the non-residential accommodation for the purpose
- 23 - of starting or continuing his own business relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 1974 AIR 1596. It is pertinent to note that the aforesaid finding was given by the Hon’ble Apex Court while interpreting Section 12(1)(f) of Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act 1961. But this case pertains to the Karnataka Rent Act. Explanation 1 Appended to clause (r) sub Section (2) of Section 27 of Karnataka Rent Act provides inter alia that where landlord in his application supported by an affidavit submits that the premises are required by him for occupation for himself or for any other members of his family, dependent on him Court shall presume that premises are so required and the said presumption have the effect of shifting burden of proof it will be for the tenant to rebut the said presumption. In view of the aforesaid presumption available to the landlord under the Karnataka Rent Act, the citation of Hon’ble Apex Court reported in AIR 1974 SC 1596 pertaining to Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act 1961 does not applies to this case. Under the above facts and circumstances the trial Court is justified in holding that the petitioner has made out the ground for eviction under Section 27(2)(r) of Karnataka Rent Act. Hence, I have answered the Point No. 2 in Affirmative.
POINT NO. 3 :- The petitioner has proved that he is the landlord and the respondents are the tenants and the petitioner further proved that the petition premises is required for his occupation. Further the petitioner proved the nonpayment of the rent by the respondents. The respondents have not questioned the quantum of rent in the cross-examination of P.W.1 and 2 and the trial Court by properly appreciating the oral and documentary evidence
- 24 - rightly allowed the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 27(2)(r) of Karnataka Rent Act and directed respondents to pay Rs.5,040/- towards arrears of rent and to vacate the petition schedule premises. I do not find any error or illegality in the impugned Judgment passed by the trial Court and the same does not call for interference by this Court. Hence, I have answered the Point No. 3 in the Negative.”
The Revisional Court has elaborately discussed while dismissing the petition filed by the revision petitioners and also provisions of Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act.
On careful examination of the entire material placed on record, I do not find any error, illegality of infirmity in the finding given by the Revisional Court. In the result, I proceed to pass the following: O R D E R
Revision petition dismissed. (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE
LNN CT-CMU
Reproduced from the public record of the Karnataka High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.