Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
M.G.UMA
Syed Riyaz Ahmed S/o Late Sri Syed Ahmed – Appellant
Versus
K.B. Mariyappa Since Dead By Lrs. – Respondent
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 us
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.
The court upheld the eviction of a tenant based on established ownership and rental arrears, confirming the petitioner's claims under the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999.
It is well settled that rights of parties will have to be determined on basis of rights available to them on date of suit.
It is settled law that, if no document evidencing fact of tenancy is given and if it is an oral tenancy, same has to be considered on merits.
The burden of proof lies on the landlord to establish a genuine and bona fide requirement for possession of the premises, and the tenant must prima facie make out a case that disentitles the landlord....
Point of Law : Findings rendered by the courts below were well supported by evidence on record and could not even be said to be perverse in any way. The High Court could not have re-appreciated the e....
The judgment emphasizes the importance of regular rent payments and compliance with deposit rules by tenants, and it upholds the rights of illiterate landlords to property use.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
