Back
1982 Supreme(Kar) 185
Karnataka High Court
SADRODDIN IBRAHIM - Appellant
Versus
NARAYANA RAMACHANDRA - Respondent
Decided On : 08-31-82
C.R.P. : 1007 of 1977
K.I.BHATTA, N.A.MANDAGI
The judgment emphasizes the importance of proving a bona fide and reasonable requirement for eviction under the Rent Control Act, and the specific conditions that must be met under the relevant sections.
Headnote:
Rent Control Act - Landlord-Tenant Dispute - S. 21(1)(d)(h)(k)(l) - S. 187(9) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 - S. 213 of the Municipalities Act
Fact of the Case:
The landlord filed for eviction under S. 21(1)(d)(h)(k)(l) of the Rent Control Act, alleging the need to construct a building for his son's business and to demolish an unauthorized structure. The tenant denied the contentions, leading to an eviction order by the Munsiff, which was later overturned by the District Judge.
Finding of the Court:
The District Judge's decision to dismiss the eviction petition was upheld as the landlord's claims did not fall under the specified sections of the Rent Control Act. The court also found that the landlord failed to prove the bona fide and reasonable requirement for eviction.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the landlord's grounds for eviction under specific sections of the Rent Control Act and the legitimacy of the landlord's claims.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the relevant sections of the Rent Control Act and the lack of evidence supporting the landlord's claims.
Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed, and the parties were directed to bear their own costs throughout.
( 1 ) THE revision petition is directed against the order dt. Jan. 25, 1977, made by the District Judge, Belgaum, in H. R. C. Appeal No. 7 of 1975 allowing the appeal and setting aside the order of eviction made by the munsiff, Belgaum in H. R. C. No, 11977 of 1973.
( 2 ) THE landlord filed the petition under S. 21. (1) (d) (h) (k) and (l) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act. 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the rent Control Act') alleging that his son Mohamad Gous had studied upto 6th Standard and was unemployed. According to him, he intended to start some business so that his son Mohamad gous would look after the same and maintain himself. 'he intends to construct a building in the petition pre mises so as to enable his son to run the business. He cannot construct any building in the petition premises unless it is vacated by the tenant. Under these circumstances, he required the possession of the petition premises bona fide and reasonably for erecting a building so as to enable his son to run the shop. The petition premises had been let out to the tenan for running a fire wood depot; but the tenant has, started selling illicit liquor also. The tenant is a drunkard, and has become a source of nuisance to the neighbouring locality. Even on this ground, he sought for possession. The tenant, has erected a structure in some portion of the petition premises without his knowledge and consent and also without obtaining permission from the local authority. It is an unauthorised construction. The municipal authorities have now issued notices to him to demolish the building. Hence he required the petition premises for the demolition also.
( 3 ) THE tenant by his objections denied all the contentions of the landlord.
( 4 ) THE Murisiff, alter recording the evidence of the petitioner-landlord and of the respondent-tenant and marking some documents, ordered the eviction. The tenant approached the Dist id court in H. R. C. Appeal No. 7 of 1975. The District Judge, on a perusal of the records, allowed the appeal and dismissed the eviction petition.
( 5 ) THE landlord being aggrieved by the said order of the District Judge,. has come up with the present revision petition.
( 6 ) SHRI K. I. Bhatta, learned counsel for the revision petitioner-land lord. , contended that the landlord required the petition premises bonafide and reasonably for putting up a structure in the petition premises so as to enable his son to run a grocery shop. According to him, greater hardship would be caused to the land-lord if eviction was refused and no comparative hardship would be caused to the tenant if eviction was ordered. He further urged that as the Municipality had issued notices to him under S. 187 (9) of the karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Municipalities Act') calling upon him to demolish the building, he required the possession thereof for demolishing the construction. Shri N. A. Mandagt, learned counsel for the respondent- tenant, contended that the case did not come within the ambit of S. 21 (1) (h) or 21 (l) (k) of the Rent Control act and that at the most the case would fall under S. 21 (1) (l) of the rent Control Act. He, further urged that the petitioner had failed to prove that the petition premises was bona fide and reasonably required by him.
( 7 ) IT is undisputed that a small structure found in the petition premises is not constructed by the landlord. It appears from the material on record that the structure was built by the tenant himself perhaps for the purpose of storing the fuel. It is undisputed that the structure in question has been built without any permission from the local authorities. Thus, it becomes dear that the structure in question is an unauthorised construdtion. The Municipality, bclgaum, by issuing the notice ext. P-5 and the provisional order ext. P-6, and the final order Ext. P-7, has called upon the landlord as well as the tenant to dimolish the; building.
( 8 ) S. 21 (1)
