IMPORTANT POINT
If the landlord s claim under Section 21(1)(h) of Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 was bona fide then the same cannot be mala fide for the purpose of judging comparative hardship to landlord and tenant for the purpose of Section 21(4) of the Act.

Headnote:Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 -Sections 21(1)(h) and 21(4)-Purchase of property to reside-Suit for eviction on bona fide need as landlord living in rented house-Need found bona fide by both revisional Courts below but declined to order eviction on view of more hardship to tenant-Appeal to Supreme Court-Whether comparative hardship has been correctly viewed by Courts below? -(No)-Appeal allowed-Time granted to vacate on usual undertaking filed.
       Held : We are unable to reconcile these two findings of the High Court. While it confirms the finding of the learned District Judge as noted above, in regard to appellant s claim for bonafide occupation of the premises, still while considering the same question in the context of comparative hardship surprisingly the High Court contradicts itself by questioning the bonafide of the purchase of the suit schedule premises. If the High Court was right in holding that the purchase of the premises by the appellant was not bonafide then his claim under Section 21(1)(h) should have been dismissed. If the appellant s claim under Section 21(1)(h) was bonafide which we think it is, then the same cannot be otherwise for the purpose of Section 21(4) of the Act. (Para 7)
       In the instant case both the High Court and the District Court having upheld that claim of the landlord as to his bonafide need under Section 21(1)(h) they could not have denied the relief solely on the ground that he is an affluent person. (Para 8)
       Courts below having found his claim for occupation being genuine, while considering the question of comparative hardship they ought to have taken note of the hardship the landlord would have suffered by not occupying his own premises as against the hardship the tenant would suffer by having to move out to another place. We are of the opinion assuming there will be some hardship to the tenant by having to vacate the premises, same can be mitigated by granting a reasonable time to vacate, bearing in mind the fact that the tenant has been residing in the suit house for considerably long period of time and this litigation itself has consumed nearly 12 years and the tenant has not taken any steps to find out any alternate accommodation. (Para 9)
       For the said reasons, we are of the opinion that the comparative hardship that may be suffered by the landlord will be greater than that of the tenant, and what little hardship that may be suffered by the tenant on facts of this case can be mitigated by granting him two years time to vacate the suit schedule premises. In the said view of the matter, this appeal succeeds, the judgments impugned are set aside and the eviction petition filed by the landlord under Section 21(1)(h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act is allowed. We, however, give time till 31st of March, 2005 to the tenant to vacate the suit schedule premises on the condition that he files the usual undertaking before the Registry of this Court within four weeks from today. The appeal is allowed. (Paras 10 and 11)

JUDGMENT

Santosh Hegde, J.-Leave granted.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court dated 12th January, 2000, the appellant is before us in this civil appeal.

4. The appellant purchased the suit schedule property on 3.1.1990 which was then occupied by the respondent as a tenant. On 6.10.1990, the appellant issued a notice to the respondent to vacate the premises in question as he required the same for his own bonafide use and occupation. Since the respondent did not vacate the premises, the appellant filed eviction petition under Section 21(1)(a) & (h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 for eviction on the ground of non-payment of rent and for personal use and occupation. In the said petition, the appellant had pleaded that he had no other premises in Bijapur City where the suit schedule premises is situated and he being a resident in the said town and doing business in the said city occupying a rented premises, himself with his family required the said premises for his own use and occupation. The respondent had denied the claim of the appellant. The trial court rejected the eviction petition. In revision, the learned District Judge though came to the conclusion that the claim of the appellant for self occupation was genuine still came to the conclusion that the respondent would suffer comparatively greater hardship than the appellant if eviction is ordered, hence, on the said ground dismissed the revision petition. The appellant challenged the dismissal of his revision petition before the High Court in H.R.R.P. No. 695/1997, while the respondent filed H.R.R.P. No. 738/1997 challenging the finding of the learned District Judge on the question of bonafide requirement of the appellant. Learned Single Judge of the High Court who heard the revision petition dismissed both the revision petitions thus confirming the findings of the District Judge on the question of genuineness of the claim of the appellant to seek possession of the suit premises for his own use and occupation and as also the findings of the District Judge in regard to comparative hardship. While dismissing the petition of the landlord, the High Court held : "Even if there exist bonafide need, the hardship that will be caused to the tenant would outweigh the bonafide need that would be gained by the landlord. In this view of the matter, the finding of the Court below has to be confirmed. I do so. H.R.R.Ps. are dismissed." The respondent has not challenged the said dismissal of his revision petition, therefore, finding of the District Judge that the appellant requires the suit premises for his own use and occupation stands affirmed.

5. In this appeal, Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant contends that the courts below have erred in coming to the conclusion that greater hardship would be caused to the respondent if eviction is ordered inspite of the fact they came to the conclusion that the appellant landlord genuinely required the suit premises for his and his family s use and occupation. He contended that the appellant was doing business in Bijapur City and he had no property of his own where he could reside, therefore, with the said intention he had purchased suit schedule property. He also pointed out that the appellant with his family was residing in rented premises, therefore, the courts below have erred in coming the conclusion that the comparative hardship was greater for the respondent. He also contended that the High Court erred in not applying the principles laid down in the earlier judgment of the said court in the case reported in (1969 (2) Mysore Law Journal 394) wherein it was specifically held that if the landlord who is residing in a rented property seeks eviction of a suit premises purchased by him, establishes that he requires the said premises for his bonafide use and occupation then the question of hardship should be decided in favour of the landlord. The learned

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2003 Supreme(SC) 191

IMPORTANT POINTIf the landlord s claim under Section 21(1)(h) of Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 was bona fide then the same cannot be mala fide for the purpose of judging comparative hardship to landlord and tenant for the purpose of Section 21(4) of the Act.

IMPORTANT POINT
If the landlord s claim under Section 21(1)(h) of Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 was bona fide then the same cannot be mala fide for the purpose of judging comparative hardship to landlord and tenant for the purpose of Section 21(4) of the Act.