Sri N Srinivasa vs. Bangalore Ayodhya Nagarada Shivacharya Vyasa (Nagartha)

Facts

The petitioner, Sri. N. Srinivasa, is challenging a judgment and decree from the VIII Additional Judge Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru, in SC No. 31/2020, which ordered his ejectment from shop premises. The respondent, Bangalore Ayodhya Nagarada Shivacharya Vyasa (Nagartha) Samithi, represented by its Secretary, sought possession of the premises for bona fide use. The petitioner has occupied the premises since 2007 for business and claims it is his livelihood. During the High Court proceedings, the petitioner filed an affidavit undertaking to vacate within three years and pay applicable rent. The respondent argued that tenants in similar shops pay ₹9,000/- per month excluding GST and that the petitioner is not entitled to an extension.

Held

The Court disposed of the petition by issuing specific directions. The petitioner is directed to vacate and hand over vacant possession of the suit schedule premises on or before December 31, 2027. Failure to do so would allow the respondent to execute the decree immediately. The petitioner is to pay rent at the rate of ₹8,000/- per month plus 18% GST from December 1, 2024, until possession is handed over. This rent will be enhanced by 10% annually. The petitioner must also pay ₹1,50,000/- towards arrears of rent by January 31, 2025. The petitioner shall cooperate with any renovation plans by the respondent during his occupation. The Court clarified that the respondent has the liberty to extend the lease beyond the stipulated period if they wish. The ratio is that while upholding the decree for ejectment, the Court can grant a reasonable extension of time for vacating, subject to strict conditions regarding rent payment, GST, and arrears, considering the tenant's circumstances and the landlord's bona fide need.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to an extension of time to vacate the suit schedule premises, considering his long occupation and dependence on the shop for livelihood? 2. What is the appropriate rent and GST payable by the petitioner during the extended period of occupation, and what are the conditions for vacating the premises? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that he has been in occupation since 2007 and depends on the shop for his livelihood, implying a need for reasonable time to vacate. He submitted an affidavit undertaking to vacate within three years and pay applicable rent. Respondent's arguments: The respondent contended that tenants in similar shops are paying ₹9,000/- per month, excluding GST. They also asserted that the premises are required for their bona fide use and that the petitioner is not entitled to an extension of time for vacating the property.