Bharathi Ramachandra vs Annaji Rao Vaidya and another

Jawad Rahim, J.—Tenant is in revision against the order dated 20.9.2010 in HRC. 1909/09 on the file of Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore. The petition is posted for admission after notice to the respondents.

Respondents initiated eviction proceedings against the petitioner from the premises described in the schedule to the petition on the premises that they require it for their own use and occupation to start a bakery. They averred petitioner herein was tenant from 1.7.1993 on a monthly rent of Rs. 200/- which was periodically enhanced, and the present rate of rent is Rs. 800/-p.m. In this regard, they issued a notice to him calling upon him to vacate, but he failed to comply. Thus, terminating his tenancy with effect from 28.2.2007, they filed eviction petition.

The tenant resisted the action on the ground eviction proceedings is ill-motivated and with sinister design; he denied they required the premises for their own use and occupation; landlords are speculators in real estate and their only intention is to evict him and to sell it for a Higher price or to re-let the premises.

Based on these contentions, parties went ahead with evidence. Respondents-landlords led evidence through their general power of attorney holder-Kusumakar and examined one D. Nagabhushan, GPA holder of N. Manjula, and placed reliance on 10 documents. Petitioner examined herself as RW1 and relied on Ex. D1 -rent receipt.

The core contention of the tenant is landlords do not require the premises for their own use. With the evidence of D. Nagabhushan, it was proved he had sold the property to the respondents, thereby putting an end to the controversy of lawful title of the respondents and jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.

The moot question is, whether respondents-landlords require the premises for their own use and occupation. The evidence tendered in this regard revealed they require the premises for running a bakery which the tenant pointed out was not within their competence, as they lacked experience, expertise or even knowledge to manage such business. Regarding rate of rent, the dispute raised on behalf of the tenant was accepted and it was taken as Rs. 600/- p.m. The learned trial Judge, however, noticed overwhelming evidence by the landlords and accepting it, ordered eviction.

As referred to in paragraphs supra, the tenant''s main ground is that landlords do not require the premises for their own use and occupation. Records reveal landlords having purchased the property in 2006, have made persistent attempts to get the premises vacated and soon thereafter eviction proceedings have been initiated. This bears testimony to the fact that they had no intention to compel the tenant to heed to their demand of higher rent and on failure, have filed the petition. Their need is proved by ocular testimony and the need projected cannot be rejected on the ground that they lack expertise or knowledge. The finding recorded by the trial Court is well reasoned and I find no ground to interfere with it, and it is confirmed.

However, I am persuaded to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant that he has a large family to maintain and eviction would result in great hardship as he has school-going children. In the instant case, balancing the requirement of the landlords and hardship, I feel grant of reasonable time would meet the ends of justice.

Hence, while confirming the order of eviction passed by the trial Court, the petitioner-tenant is granted two years time from today to vacate the schedule premises and deliver possession to the respondents-landlords under the following terms:

I) Petitioner-tenant is granted time till 31.3.2013 to quit, vacate and deliver vacant possession of their respective portion to the respondents-landlords, without compelling them to resort to execution proceedings.

II) Grant of time is subject to the petitioner paying the entire arrears of rent, if any, due till date within three months from today and to continue to pay monthly rents as and when they fall due.

III) In case of default in payment of rents for two consecutive months, the respondents-landlords will be entitled to execute the decree, and the benefit of the unexpired time will stand revoked.

IV) The rent revision petition is disposed of accordingly.

V) Petitioner shall file an affidavit before the registry incorporating the above terms within two weeks from today.