The court affirmed a landlord's right to evict a tenant under Section 27(2)(r) for family use, requiring proof of no suitable alternative accommodation while setting aside improper damage claims.

ORDER :

M.G.UMA, J.

The revision petitioner - tenant being the respondent in HRC.No.10014/2017 on the file of the learned V Additional Small causes Judge and XXIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru (SCCH 20), is impugning the judgment dated 12.02.2019 allowing the petition filed by the petitioner therein; directing the tenant to vacate the schedule premises; to hand over the vacant possession within 30 days, pay damages at the rate of Rs.3,500/- per month for use and occupation of the schedule premises and holding that the petitioner is entitled to adjust the amount that is due from the security deposit of Rs.1,00,000/- paid by the tenant and to refund the balance amount.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their rank and status before the Trial Court.

3. Brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner -landlord filed HRC No.10014 of 2017 before the Trial Court against the respondent - tenant under Section 27 (b)(r) of Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, (for short 'KR Act') seeking for an order directing the respondent to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the schedule shop premises and also to direct to pay the user charges in respect of the petition schedule premises from the date of petition till handing over the possession.

4. It is contended by the petitioner before the Trial Court that he is the owner of the building bearing Corporation Nos.8, 9 and 10, Seepings Road, Bengaluru, as he acquired it under oral partition, which is evidenced from palupatti dated 25.03.1991. Accordingly, his name came to be entered in the revenue records with BBMP. He was paying the tax regularly. It is contended that the property bearing Corporation Nos.8, 9 and 10 comprises of three floors including the ground floor. Petitioner along with his family was residing in the first and second floor of the building. The ground floor consists of three tenements facing the main road. Shop No.9 in the ground floor is the subject matter of the petition which is described in the schedule attached to the petition as it measures 120 sq ft, with the boundaries mentioned therein.

5. It is contended that the schedule premises was occupied by the respondent as tenant as per the lease agreement dated 05.04.2004. He agreed to pay rent of Rs.2,000/- and paid Rs.1,00,000/- as security deposit. Defendant agreed to pay the rent on or before 10^th of every succeeding English calendar month, subject to enhancement at 10% for every three years.

6. The petitioner contended that shop No.8 was in the occupation of another tenant by name Devilal Bafna. The petitioner is in need of shop Nos.8 and 9 i.e., shop No.8 being in possession of Devila Bafna and shop No.9 is in occupation of the respondent, for the purpose of accommodating his married sons by names K M Bhaskar and K M Dinesh, who intend to do business of their choice. It is stated that there are no other suitable accommodation to provide for his sons for the purpose of carrying on their business. It is stated that separate petition was filed against the tenant by name Devilal Bafna who was in occupation of shop No.8.

7. It is contended by the petitioner that the respondent has sublet the premises in favour of a third party, violating the terms of lease and collecting much higher