IMPORTANT POINT
Provisions of Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 would apply even to pending civil revisions.

Headnote:(i) Karnataka Rent Act, 1999-Section 70(2)(b)-Provisions of the 1999 Act would apply to pending civil revisions also-High Court was justified in taking notice of provisions of 1999 Act and decide revision in a petition which was filed u/s 21(1)(h) of Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961. (Para 6)
       (ii) Karnataka Rent Act, 1999-Sections 27(3) and 31-Landlady a widow and premises if let out by her or by her husband were required for use by her and for her family members or for any one ordinarily living with her, could apply for recovery of immediate possession of such premises-Affidavit in support of application would raise presumption in favour of landlady-Mandatory presumption enacted by 1999 Act shall have effect of shifting burden of proof-Issue of comparative hardship had lost its relevance under the Act 1999-No fault could be found with eviction order allowed by High Court in revision when landlady was widow and got petition amended during revision and besides presumption in her favour, bona fide need was also established.
       Held : Indeed, the provisions of the 1999 Act, especially the provisions relating to eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement, have a material bearing on the case and the proceedings forming the subject matter of the present appeal. Under the 1961 Act, the relevant ground for eviction of the tenant was contained in clause (h) of sub-section (1) of Section 21 which provided for an order for the recovery of possession of premises being made on the ground that the premises are reasonably and bonafidely required by the landlord for occupation by himself and so on. However, sub-section (4) of section 21 provided that a ground for eviction under clause (h) abovesaid, in spite of having been made out, yet decree for eviction could not be passed if the Court was satisfied, having regard to all the circumstances of the case including the question whether other reasonable accommodation is available for the landlord, that a greater hardship would be caused to the tenant by passing the decree than by refusing to pass it. A partial eviction was also permissible consistently with the finding on the question of hardship. Under the 1999 Act, the relevant ground for eviction as contemplated by clause (r) of sub-section (2) of Section 27 is that the premises let are required whether in the same form or after reconstruction or re-building by the landlord for occupation for himself or for any member of his family and so on; and that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation to satisfy the said requirement. The concept of comparative hardship has been given up and instead sub-section (3) of Section 27 now provides that the Court may, on a ground for eviction under clause (r) abovesaid having been made out, allow eviction from only a part of the premises if the landlord is agreeable to the same. A new provision has been enacted vide Section 31 of the 1999 Act which provides that if the landlady be a widow and the premises were let out by her or by her husband and the tenanted premises are required for use by her and for her family members or for any one ordinarily living with her she may apply to the Court for recovery of immediate possession of such premises. (Para 7)

JUDGMENT

Lahoti, J.-This is a landlord-tenant dispute wherein the landlady has sought for eviction of the tenant on the ground of bona fide requirement of the suit premises for her own occupation - by herself and by members of her family residing with her, under clause (h) of proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 21 of The Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter "the 1961 Act", for short). Admittedly, the respondent-landlady is a widow. She is also owner of the premises wherein the appellants are the tenants. The eviction petition was filed some time in the year 1985. The requirement as pleaded by the landlady is that she has two major sons and two minor sons. The occupation of the landlady s family is weaving. One of the major sons was married, also blessed with a child and engaged in the family business. The second major son was unemployed and yet to be married. He was desirous of starting his own business but the premises presently in occupation of the landlady were not sufficient to accommodate any business activity of the second son. The other two sons were minor and did not have any place to study available within the premises in their occupation. The second of the major sons was to be married and the premises in occupation of the landlady did not have enough accommodation to allow occupation by the second major son as a married member of the family, inasmuch as his wife shall also have to be accommodated in the premises in occupation of the family.

2. It is not disputed that the tenanted premises, that is the scheduled house premises in occupation of the tenants are residential premises. The tenants in their written statement filed before the Rent Controller admitted the premises to be residential and in their occupation for residence.

3. The Rent Controller and the Appellate Court found the requirement of the landlady not made out. The two courts also examined the case from the point of view of comparative hardship as required by sub-section (4) of Section 21 of the 1961 Act and arrived at a finding that if the tenant-appellants were directed to be evicted they would suffer greater hardship than the hardship which would be suffered by the landlady in the event of the eviction being denied.

4. The landlady preferred a revision petition in the High Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. During the pendency of the civil revision, the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 (for short "the 1999 Act") came into force. The High Court took notice of the provisions of the new Act and applied the same to the case before it as required by clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 70 of the 1999 Act and held the bona fide requirement of the landlady was made out, allowed the revision and reversing the judgments of the two courts below directed the tenant-appellants to be evicted. Indeed it may be noted that during the pendency of the revision, the landlady-respondent had moved an application for amendment in her petition for eviction which was allowed by the High Court, and therein the landlady had specifically pleaded the right to recover immediate possession of premises to widow as contemplated by Section 31 of the 1999 Act. That ground has also found favour with the High Court.

5. Aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court, the tenant-appellants have preferred this appeal by special leave.

6. So far as the applicability of the provisions of the 1999 Act is concerned, no fault can be found with the view taken by the High Court that the provisions of the 1999 Act apply to pending civil revisions. Section 70 of the 1999 Act repeals the 1961 Act. Clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 70 provides that all cases and proceedings other than those referred to in clause (a) and pending at the commencement of the 1999 Act in respect of the premises to which the 1999 Act is applicable, shall be continued and disposed of in accordance with the provisions of the 1999 Act. It is not disputed that the scheduled premises, which are

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2004 Supreme(SC) 239

IMPORTANT POINTProvisions of Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 would apply even to pending civil revisions.

IMPORTANT POINT
Provisions of Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 would apply even to pending civil revisions.