The central legal point established in the judgment is the necessity for the landlord to prove the dilapidated condition of the premises, the capacity to reconstruct after demolition, and the need for a sanctioned plan from the authority before obtaining a decree for eviction under Section 27 (2) (r) of the Karnataka Rent Act.

TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.

( 1 ) LEAVE granted.

( 2 ) AN eviction petition being HRC No. 233 of 2002 was filed before the Chief judge, Small Cause Court, Bangalore for eviction of the appellant from the residential premises bearing No. 100, Surveyor Street, Bangalore-4 (in short "the suit premises") under Section 27 (2) (r) read with Section 31 of the Karnataka Rent Act (in short "the Act") on the ground that since the suit premises is old and in a dilapidated condition, the same was required to be demolished in order to put up a new construction and that the respondent required the suit premises for use and occupation by herself and her children after demolition and reconstruction of the same as she and her children were staying in her father-in-law's house. It was also the case of the respondent that the appellant had been residing in the suit premises for more than 20 years and therefore, he should find his own sukable accommodation and accordingly, he was liable to be evicted.

( 3 ) A written statement was filed by the appellant in which the allegations made in the eviction petition were denied and it was stated that the respondent was not entitled to evict the appellant as she did not require the suit premises for her bona fide use and occupation. It was further alleged in the written statement that since the respondent was not the sole owner of the suit premises, the eviction petition filed at her instance only was not maintainable and therefore, the same was liable to be dismissed. It was also alleged that the condition of the suit premises was not so dilapidated for which demolition and reconstruction was necessary. The chief Judge of the Small Cause Court, Bangalore by his order dated 1st of April, 2004 dismissed the eviction petition of the respondent. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Chief judge of the Small Cause Court at Bangalore, the respondent filed a revision petition before the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore being H. R. R. P. No. 366 of 2004. The High Court by it's order dated 19th of October, 2006, had set aside the order of the Chief Judge of the Small Cause Court thereby allowing the revision petition and directing eviction of the appellant from the suit premises but granted six months time to vacate and handover the possession of the same to the respondent. It is this order of the High Court, which is now under challenge in this Court by way of a special leave petition in respect of which leave has already been granted.

( 4 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned order of the High Court as well as the order of the Small Cause Court and the other materials on record. In our view, the High Court was not justified in reversing the judgment of the Small Cause Court without being satisfied whether the respondent had fulfilled the conditions required for eviction of the appellant as laid down under Section 27 (2) (r) of the Act. Chapter 6 of the Act deals with regulation of eviction. Section 27 of the Act deals with protection of tenants against eviction. Sub-section (1) of section 27 clearly says that notwitstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract, no order or decree for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made in favour of the landlord save as provided in sub-section (2) of section 27. Sub-section (2) of Section 27 empowers the Court, on an application made to it in the prescribed manner, to make an order for the recovery of possession of the premises on one or more of the grounds enumerated therein. Clause (r) of subsection (2) of Section 27 being one such ground and involved in present case runs as under :

" (r) 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 if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other r