Consistency of evidence with pleadings, statutory presumption in favor of the landlord, and subsequent events not disproving the landlord's claim.

1. This is a landlord's petition challenging the correctness and legality of judgment passed by XV Addl. Small Causes Judge, Mayo Hall Unit, Bangalore, in HRC No.10051/2006 dated 04.08.2008, whereunder petition filed under Section 27(2)(r) and 31 of the Karnataka Rent Act,1999 (for short 'Rent Act'), has been dismissed.

2. I have heard the arguments of learned Advocates appearing for parties namely, Sriyuths K.R. Ananthamurthy, for petitioner and Sri. H.J. Sanghvi, for respondent. Perused the records.

3. It is the contention of Sri. Ananthamurthy, learned counsel appearing for petitioner that trial Court was not justified in dismissing the petition for eviction without appreciating the evidence available on record in proper perspective and not considering the fact that schedule premises is required for bonafide use and occupation of petitioner and his family members. He would draw the attention of Court to finding recorded by trail Court at paragraph 33, whereunder it has been held that there is inconsistency in the evidence of PW1 namely, he had deposed to the effect that he requires schedule premises for his occupation to be used for residential purposes, but in the petition he has pleaded that it is required for the use and occupation of his children for conducting business and as such, there is inconsistency. He contends that stray sentence in the evidence cannot form basis and entire evidence has to be read and when it is read so, it would clearly indicate that petitioner had sought for eviction of respondent on the ground that he requires schedule premises both for business being conducted by his sons in schedule premises and also for using it for residential purposes. Hence, he contends that judgment passed by trial Court dismissing the petition is set aside by allowing the revision petition. In support of his submission, he has relied upon the judgment in the case of PUTTANNA SHETTY (DECEASED) BY LRs AND ORS. vs. PADMA SHETTY (DECEASED) BY LRs AND ORS. reported in 2007 (3) KCCR 2107 (DB).

4. Per contra, Sri. H.J. Sanghvi, learned counsel appearing for respondent would support the judgment passed by trial Court. He would elaborate his submission by contending that petitioner is in the habit of filing eviction petitions and after obtaining eviction orders, either it is let out for third parties for higher rent or same is kept vacant and subsequent events, which have taken place in the instant case, as pleaded in application Misc. Civil No.4719/2010 would clearly prove this fact. Hence, he prays for dismissal of revision petition and for affirming the order passed by trial Court.

5. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for parties and on perusal of judgment passed by trial Court and on considering the pleadings and evidence of parties, I am of the considered view that following points would arise for my consideration:

(i) Whether judgment passed by trial Court in HRC No.10051/2006 dated 04.08.2008 dismissing eviction petition filed under Section 27(2)(r) and 31 of the Rent Act, 1999, is to be affirmed or reversed?

(ii) Whether subsequent events as pleaded by respondent in Misc. Civil No.4719/2010 would indicate that there are bonafides in the claim made by petitioner?

(iii) What order?

6. There is no dispute with regard to relationship between parties. Eviction petition came to be filed under Section 27(2)(r) and 31 of the Rent Act, 1999, contending interalia that it is required for his requirement of running a shop for pooja items, since it is located opposite to Ranganatha Swamy Temple. It was also contended that petitioner is an Archak in the said temple and in order to set up his children and to give employment to his son to eke out livelihood, he requires petition schedule shop. It was also contended that he is aged 68 years and as such, claiming benefit of eviction under Section 31 of the Rent Act, 1999, eviction of respondent was sought for. Petitioner specifically contended that in a compromise decree ente