Back
2002 Supreme(Kar) 717
Karnataka High Court
K.N.Saraswathamma - Appellant
Versus
Sarala - Respondent
Decided On : 11-22-02
House Rent Revision Petition : 316 of 1999
R.B.SADASHIVAPPA
Headnote:Availability of suitable accommodation
KARNATAKA RENT CONTROL ACT, 1961
Section 21(1)(h) -Eviction proceedings -dismissal of petition for want of bona fide requirement -first floor and third floor of the premises vacant -not suitable for the occupation of the landlord -change in law -landlord need not prove bona fide requirement - directed to vacate within three months.
[A. V. Sreenivasa Reddy, J.] - If the purpose and object behind the enactment of the new legislation is to overcome the shortage in housing by having a more liberalised approach and doing away with the need to provide stringent proof in support of the grounds for eviction, the Court bound as it is to give a purposeful interpretation as to effectuate the intention of the legislature and not a purposeless one in order to defeat the intention of the legislature, can not go into the question of bonafides as it is no longer a criterion under the present Act for deciding the issue in an eviction petition filed by the landlord for her own requirement. Therefore, the decision relied upon by the counsel for the respondent is not in any way helpful to him because of the changes effected in law. The petitioner having established her requirement of the premises and that as of now she does not possess any suitable accommodation, she is entitled to an order of eviction under Sec.27(2) (r) of the Act.
Cases Referred :
(1986) 4 SCC 736; (1986) 4 SCC 746.
( 1 ) IN this petition filed under (the repealed Act for short) the petitioner-landlord prays for setting aside the order dated 6. 11. 1998 passed in h. R. C. No. 1493/96 by the XVIIIth Addl. Small Causes Judge, bangalore, dismissing the eviction petition filed under Section 21 (1) (h) of the Act.
( 2 ) THE facts necessary for the disposal of the revision, briefly stated, are as under: the landlady filed the petition under Section 21 (1) (h) of the repealed Act for eviction of the respondent on the ground that the accommodation that was available with her was not sufficient for her requirement. The son of the petitioner examined himself as p. W. 1. The respondent examined herself but did not submit to cross-examination by the petitioner. The Court-below came to the conclusion that the requirement of the petitioner is reasonable but proceeded to dismiss the petition on the ground of lack of bonafides on the part of the petitioner. The conclusion reached by the Courtbelow on the question of bonafides was accentuated by the fact that the first and third floor portions fell vacant even before filing of the petition and the petitioner failed to occupy them despite her need to have additional accommodation. Thus, though the Courtbelow concurred with the petitioner on the question on reasonable requirement of the petition premises it, nevertheless, dismissed the eviction petition. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision is filed.
( 3 ) I have heard the learned Counsel on both sides.
( 4 ) DURING the pendency of the revision in this Court, the old act has come to be replaced by The Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 (the act for short) which has in its wake brought about substantial changes in the matter of regulation of eviction. The rigour of proof that a landlord has to discharge for getting an order of eviction against a tenant on any of the grounds available to him under section 27 of the Act has been considerably whittled down in the act, by incorporation of a legal fiction in Explanation I to Section 27. By Explanation I to Section 27 the Act mandates that the Court shall presume that the premises are so required, without the landlord being required to prove the genuineness of the requirement. The provisions of the New Act, while introducing this legal fiction in favour of the landlord, has imposed the only onus on him of proving that he does not posses a more suitable accommodation for his occupation. Thus, the need of the landlord to prove that the premises is required by him for his own bonafide use and occupation has been totally done away with by explanation I Section 27 of the act by introduction of this legal fiction. I would be making a reference to Section 27 (2) (r) of the Act in the course of this order. I would be required to examine the relative merits of this revision petition only with reference to the provisions contained in the Act as the Old Act has been repealed in its entirety. Chapter -VI of the act lays down the several grounds under which the landlord can recover possession of the premises. Section 27 (2) (r) covers the ground of occupation for self or for any member of his family. The relevant provision reads: 27. Protection of tenants against eviction - (1) notwithstanding 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 by the Court, District Judge or high Court in favour of the landlord against a tenant, save as provided in sub - section (2 ). (2) The Court may, on an application made to it in the prescribed manner, make an order for the recovery of possession of the premises on one or more of the following grounds only, namely -. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (r) that the premises let are required, whether in the same form or after re-construction or re-building, by the landlord for occupation for himself or any member of his family if he is the owner th
