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.

ORDER :

M.G.UMA, J.

The petitioner being the respondent in HRC No.462/2007 on the file of the Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru City (SCCH- 24) is impugning the order dated 16.09.2022, allowing the petition under Section 27 (2)(a)(e) and (h) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 and directing the respondent to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the schedule premises to the petitioners within one month from the date of the order.

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

3. The facts in brief of the case are that, the petitioner has filed HRC No.462/2007 under Section 27 (2)(e) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 against the respondent seeking eviction and directing the respondent to hand over the vacant possession of the schedule premises. The schedule attached to the petition describes the portion of a house property bearing No.17, Rest House Road, Bangalore-01 within the boundaries mentioned therein.

4. It is the contention of the petitioners that petitioner No.1 is represented by her GPA holder. She is the absolute owner of the entire property bearing No.17, Rest House Road, Bangalore-01 as the same was gifted in her favour by her grandmother by way of registered settlement deed dated 13.06.1975. Since then, petitioner No.1 is the absolute owner in possession of the property. It is stated that the respondent is a tenant in respect of portion of house property, which measures approximately 150 Sq. Ft., on a monthly rent of Rs.150/-. The respondent was very irregular in payment of rent.

5. It is contended that the schedule premises is constructed about 75 years ago and it is in a dilapidated condition. It is dangerous and may collapse at any time. Therefore, petitioner No.1 asked the respondent to vacate the premises and hand over the possession. It is also contended that petitioner No.1 required the schedule premises as she entered into joint development agreement with M/s. Abrar Investor and develops (P) Ltd.,. Therefore, she intends to demolish the premises and construct multi-storied Commercial Complex.

6. It is the contention of petitioner No.1 that she got issued the legal notice dated 10.07.2007 by the respondent calling upon him to vacate and deliver the possession. She is in bonafide requirement of the schedule premises. But the respondent has not vacated the premises. On the other hand, issued an untenable reply. Therefore, petitioner sought for eviction of the respondent/tenant.

7. The respondent appeared before the Trial Court and filed her statement of objections contending that the description of the property in the schedule is not correct. Petitioner has not given true and correct measurement of the schedule premises and she is not entitled to seek eviction of the respondent. The General Power of Attorney deed referred to by the petitioner No.1 is a fabricated one. Respondent denied the jural relationship with petitioner No.1. However, admitted that the respondent is a tenant in respect of the schedule premises on a payment of rent of Rs.150 per month. It is contended that Mrs. S. Baig, was the owner of premises and after her demise, petitioner No.1 was collecting the rent from the respondent.

8. Respondent contended that there is serious dispute regarding the ownership of the schedule premises and there are various litigations between petitioner No.1 and others who are claiming ownership over the properties. Under such circumstances, petitioner No.1 has not proved her ownership over the property in question. Hence, she is not entitled to seek eviction. Accordingly, sought for dismissal of the pe