Established jural relationship between landlords and tenant’s heirs supported the eviction petition under Section 27(2)(r) of the Karnataka Rent Act due to landlords' bonafide use necessity.

ORDER :

H.P.SANDESH, J.

This matter is listed for admission and I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for caveator-respondent Nos.1 and 2.

2. The factual matrix of the case of the petitioners while invoking Section 27 (2)(r) of the KARNATAKA RENT ACT is that the father of the respondents i.e., the petitioners herein was a tenant under petitioners with respect to AC sheet roofed house described in the schedule having been inducted as a tenant on 04.09.1994 and rent was Rs.400/- and petition schedule premises was let out for residential purpose. The plinth area of petition schedule premises is about 3 squares comprising a hall, a room, kitchen with a toilet situated outside the main structure. The walls of the petition schedule premises are of mud, which was initially intended to be a temporary construction i.e., to accommodate the members of the family of petitioners. After the construction was completed, the younger sister of the petitioners, for whom the petition schedule premises was actually meant was reluctant to move to that premises, in view of the plinth area is only 3 squares and the toilet located outside the house. At that time, father of the respondents namely Pyarejan approached the petitioners and requested them to let out the petition schedule premises, therefore, the schedule premises has been let out to Pyarejan for residential purpose. Pyarejan initially paid monthly rents, but after sometime, due to unfortunate accident of an electrical pole, situated outside the house collapsed and fell on his younger daughter (Mehrunnisa), Pyarejan stopped paying monthly rents. The petitioners did not insist on payment of rent due to unfortunate death of daughter of Pyarejan. The petitioners are not responsible for the occurrence of incident within the property i.e., fall of electricity pole on Mehrunnisa.

3. It is also contended that Pyarejan had filed O.S.No.2252/2000 seeking compensation against the petitioner No.1-Shivakumar and the said suit is partially decreed and R.F.A.No.1071/2008 and cross appeal filed against judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.2252/2000 are pending for consideration. After the death of Mehrunnisa, daughter of Pyarejan, Pyarejan did not pay rent. After the death of Pyarejan, respondents also did not pay rent. During 2002, Pyarejan expired. Even after death of Pyarejan, respondents continued to remain in possession of schedule premises. The petitioners along with 12 members are residing in the house mentioned in the address of the cause title. The premises in which the petitioners are residing is not adequate for use and occupation. The petitioners require the petition schedule premises for their bonafide use and occupation. Hence, filed the petition contending that they are intending to demolish the existing structure and construct a residential house, so as to accommodate the family of petitioners in the petition schedule premises.

4. The said petition was resisted by filing statement of objection by the respondents contending that the petitioners have no locus standi to file the present petition asserting ownership over the schedule premises. The respondents are not at all the tenants of the schedule premises and there is no jural relationship of landlord and tenants between the petitioners and respondents. It is contended that the petitioners are misleading and suppressing the material facts by filing petition only for escaping their liability of payment of death compensation regarding death of sister of respondents. The respondents have vacated the premises after