JUDGMENT:

TARUN CHATTERJEE, J

1. Leave granted.

2. The respondent/landlord herein filed an eviction petition under Section 27(2)(r) read with Section 27(2)(j) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 (in short, the "Act") against the appellant for eviction in respect of a portion of shop No. 575, 11th Main, 5th Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore - 41, measuring 12 feet East to West and 8 =" North to South (hereinafter referred to as the "said shop"). The said eviction petition was filed before the Judge, Court of Small Causes at Bangalore, which came to be registered as HRC No. 196/2003, inter alia on the ground that the respondent required the said shop for his own use and occupation and for starting a business for his son who was handicapped. So far as the ground under Section 27 (2)(r) of the Act was concerned, the same was allowed and eviction was directed, but the ground under Section 27(2)(j) of the Act was, however, rejected and the appellant was directed to vacate the said shop within three months from the date of passing of the order of eviction, which was passed on 16th of September, 2006.

3. The case of the landlord/respondent was that he filed the eviction petition against the appellant under Section 27(2) (r) of the Act on the ground that he wanted to start a stationary business in the said shop with the assistance of his younger son so as to enable him to earn his livelihood and the appellant, being a retired engineer in the Irrigation Department and a senior citizen, the eviction petition should be allowed in his favour. The younger son, for whom the said shop was required, was/is a handicapped person.

4. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the learned Judge of the Small Causes Court, Bangalore, the High Court was moved in revision by the appellant. The challenge to the aforesaid order of the Small Causes Court Judge, directing the eviction was that the appellant was and/or is in possession of reasonable, suitable accommodation as he is the owner of shopping malls and other 10 shops in the area in question.

5. It may be mentioned that during the pendency of the eviction petition, an application for amendment of the same was filed at the instance of the landlord/respondent praying for amendment of the petition on the ground that the respondent also sought to evict the appellant under Section 31 of the Act. The High Court, by the impugned order, had affirmed the finding of the learned Judge of the Small Causes Court at Bangalore and directed eviction of the appellant from the said shop also on the ground under Section 31 of the Act. Feeling aggrieved by this order of the High Court affirming the order of eviction passed by the Small Causes Court, this Special Leave Petition was filed by the appellant in this Court which, on grant of leave, was heard in presence of the learned counsel for the parties.

6. In our view, this appeal can be disposed of on a very short point. As noted herein earlier, initially, the original petition for eviction was filed only under Section 27(2)(r) read with Section 27(2)(j) of the Act, out of which the ground under Section 27(2)(j) of the Act was negatived and eviction was ordered only on the ground of bonafide requirement of the said shop under Section 27(2)(r) of the Act, against which, the revision was moved in the High Court, which also affirmed the order of the learned Judge of the Small Causes Court, Bangalore.

7. It is true that during the pendency of the eviction petition before the Small Causes Court, the ground under Section 31 of the Act was added in the eviction petition which, for our purpose, may be reproduced as under :-

"Right to recover immediate possession of premises to accrue to a widow - (1) where the landlord is :-

(a) a widow and the premises let out by her, or by her husband;

(b) a handicapped person and the premises let out by him;

(c) a person who is of the age of sixty-five years or more an the presmies let out by him, is required for use by her or him or for her or his family