Back
1987 Supreme(Kar) 66
Karnataka High Court
Judges : Murlidher Rao
SHANKARAPPA - Appellant
Versus
PUTTAMMA - Respondent
C. R. P. 2955 Of 1983
Decided On : 03/11/1987
Advocates Appeared :
G.S.VISWESWARA, H.B.DATAR
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of sub-lease, the landlord's bona fide requirement, and the effect of the death of the original landlord in the context of eviction under the Karnataka Rent Control Act.
Headnote:
eviction - tenant's revision petition - Karnataka Rent Control Act - Section 21(1)(f) and (h) - [21(1)(f), 21(1)(h)] - The court discussed the applicability of Section 21(1)(f) and (h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act and the interpretation of sub-lease, landlord's bona fide requirement, and the effect of the death of the original landlord. The court confirmed the findings in favor of the landlord and decreed the claim based on the evidence presented.
Fact of the Case:
The tenant filed a revision petition challenging the decree for eviction under Section 21(1)(f) and (h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act. The original landlord sought eviction on the ground of bona fide and reasonable requirement for starting his own business. The tenant denied the allegations, and the court raised points for determination regarding the entitlement to recover possession, the landlord's requirement, and comparative hardship. The court recorded findings in favor of the landlord and decreed the claim.
Finding of the Court:
The court confirmed the findings in favor of the landlord and decreed the claim based on the evidence presented. The court also addressed the effect of the death of the original landlord and clarified that the cause pleaded was not personal but for the benefit of the family, thus allowing the legal representative to continue the claim.
Issues: The issues raised included the entitlement to recover possession, the landlord's requirement, and comparative hardship. The court also addressed the effect of the death of the original landlord and the legal representative's entitlement to continue the claim.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of sub-lease, the landlord's bona fide requirement, and the effect of the death of the original landlord. The court confirmed the findings in favor of the landlord and decreed the claim based on the evidence presented.
Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed, and the court granted time for the tenant to vacate the premises, subject to payment of rents. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs in the revision petition.
( 1 ) THIS is a tenant's revision petition challenging the decree for eviction, under Clauses (f) and (h) of Section 21 (1) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, in HRC No. 1273 of 1973 (renumbered as 1431/1981), dated 22nd April 1983, on the file of VIII Additional Small Causes Judge, bangalore. The tenant was granted six months time to vacate, by virtue of stay order, he continues to stay. Second respondent in this petition is the alleged sub-tenant, who is admittedly in possession of portion of the disputed premises. He claims to be a partner with the petitioner, on the basis of an unregistered partnership deed dated 2nd May 1977. These proceedings, initiated on 11th October 1973, having completed thirteen years, are in their fourteenth year.
( 2 ) ORIGINAL land lord, though fortunate to see his claim being decreed, died on 18-5-1984, without realizing its fruits. His wife is brought on record as his legal representative.
( 3 ) PETITIONER originally sought eviction only on the ground of bona fide and reasonable requirement,. e. under 21 (l) (h ). He pleaded that he required the premises to start his own business. The tenancy is admitted ; so also the monthly rent at Rs. 180/ -. Petitioner filed. A. VII seeking amendment, which is allowed on 9-11-1982. An argument is constructed to contend that the eviction is sought for "his own occupation". e. the relief is personal ; therefore the wife who is brought on record, as legal representative, has to establish independently that she also needs it for her occupation. Only to ascertain the correctness of this assertion, I quote below a portion of the amendment petition, which reads thus :
"the petitioner wants the petition schedule premises for starting his own business in provision items and he has got sufficient experience in the said business. Besides experience, the petitioner has got the necessary funds to start the said business. He proposes to invest the capital to the tune of Rs. 7,000/- to Rs. 8,000/- in the business in question. He is also capable of raising some amount as loan towards the said capital if it is necessary to do so. He is idle without any job or work to do at present and he wants to engage himself in the business activity by opening a shop in the petition schedule premises, as already stated above. Besides this_he_wants to augment his income for the benefit of himself and the members of his family by opening the shop in the schedule premises. It is submitted that in these facts and circumstances, he reasonably and bona fide requires the schedule premises for his own use and occupation and as such the respondents are liable in law to be evicted from the said premises on this count alone. "
( 4 ) PETITIONER-TENANT filed his statements denying all the allegations. By. A. II, filed on 17-6-1977, the owner sought amendment seeking relief on the ground of sub-lease in favour of 2nd respondent under Clause (f) of Section 21 (1) of the Act. He filed. A. IV under Order 1 Rule 10 C. P. C. to implead the alleged sub-tenant.. A. III was allowed on 25-7-1977 ; accordingly petition was amended. The tenant filed objections to the amended petition and second respondent (alleged sub-tenant) adopted the same. On the pleadings, the Court raised the following points for determination : -
"a) Whether the petitioner is entitled to recover the possession of the petition schedule premises under Section 21 (1) (f) of K. R. C Act ?
b) Whether the petitioner requires the petition schedule premises for his bona fide use and occupation ?
c) To whom the greater hardship would cause ? ". In support of his case landlord examined four witnesses (more about this in the paragraphs to follow) and tenant examined himself as RW-1 and the alleged sub-tenant is examined as RW-2. Several documents are filed by the landlord and the tenant. On consideration of the material, the court has recorded findings in favour of landlord and has decreed the claim ; hence this petition.
( 5 ) MR.
