Guruprasad Aradhya vs Aravind Revankar

Aravind Kumar, J.—This is a tenant''s revision petition filed under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 challenging order of Revisional Court dated 9-9-2014 passed in HRC RR No. 22 of 2012 whereunder revision petition filed by petitioner herein under Section 46(2) of Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 came to be dismissed and order of eviction passed by Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sagar, dated 12-10-2012 in HRC No. 6 of 2011 allowing the petition filed under Section 27(2)(r) of Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 came to be affirmed. I have heard the arguments of Sri H.S. Suresh, learned Counsel appearing for petitioner. Perused the orders in question. Parties are referred to as per their rank in Trial Court.

Petitioner sought for eviction of respondent from the petition schedule premises under Section 27(2)(a) and 27(2)(r) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 contending inter alia that respondent is a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 900/- and he is running a cassette shop in the petition schedule premises and he is a chronic defaulter in payment of rents. Notice issued by landlord on 1-6-2012 calling upon respondent-tenant to pay arrears of rent of Rs. 69,300/- has been returned by postal authorities as "unclaimed" and even thereafter tenant has not paid rents. It was also contended that petitioner is a Goldsmith by profession and he is carrying on his work in his residential premises and intends to commence business on a larger scale in the petition schedule premises to earn more and lead a happy and comfortable life and as such he require the petition schedule premises. On this ground he prayed for petition being allowed. On service of summons, respondent appeared and filed his statement of objections denying the averments made in the eviction petition. He admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant and denied that he was in arrears of rent. He also contended that at the time of inception of lease he had paid a sum of Rs. 90,000/- as earnest money to landlord. All other averments made in the eviction petition came to be denied. Before Trial Court petitioner got himself examined as P.W. 1 and in all produced six documents and got it marked as Exhibits P. 1 to P. 6. Respondent stepped into witness-box and he got marked two documents as Exhibits D. 1 and D. 2. Learned Trial Judge after hearing the learned Advocates appearing for the parties formulated following points for its determination:

"1. Whether the petitioner proves that the respondent is in arrears of rent from 6-12-2004 and thereby liable to be evicted under Section 27(2)(a) of Karnataka Rent Act, 1999?

Whether the petitioner proves that the petition schedule property is required to expand his business, thereby the respondent is liable to be evicted under Section 27(2)(r) of Karnataka Rent Act, 1999?

What order?"

After considering the pleadings, evaluation of evidence tendered by parties, Trial Judge has come to a conclusion that petitioner has failed to prove the point relating to arrears of rent and as such dismissed the eviction petition filed under Section 27(2)(a) of Karnataka Rent Act, 1999. However accepting plea of bona fide requirement, petition filed under Section 27(2)(r) came to be allowed by order dated 12-10-2012.

Being aggrieved by this order a revision was filed under Section 46(2) of Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 before Fast Track Court, Sagar in HRC RR No. 22 of 2012. After considering the rival contentions raised by learned Advocates appearing for the parties Revisional Court formulated following points for its consideration:

"1. Whether the revision petitioner shows sufficient reasons to interfere with the order passed by the Trial Court?

Whether the revision petitioner proves that the order of the Trial Court is illegal for capricious and against the provision of law?

What order?"

After analyzing arguments advanced by respective learned Advocates Revisional Court affirmed the order passed by Trial Court and dismissed the revision petition. Revisional Court has also taken into consideration all aspects including the plea put forward by respondent-tenant with regard to alleged payment of Rs. 90,000/- to landlord by way of earnest money.

Being aggrieved by above said order dated 9-9-2014 present revision petition has been filed. It is the contention of Sri H.S. Suresh, learned Counsel appearing for revision petitioner that Courts below have not considered the evidence in proper perspective. He would contend that a sum of Rs. 90,000/- paid as advance has not at all been considered by the Courts below in proper perspective and there are no bona fides in the claim made by the petitioner and as such the eviction petition ought to have been dismissed. Hence, he prays for allowing the revision petition.

Having heard the learned Advocate appearing for revision petitioner and on perusal of the order passed by Trial Court as affirmed by Revisional Court this Court is of the considered view this is not a fit case for admitting the revision petition for reasons stated below:

At the outset it requires to be noticed that under clause (i) to Explanation I to proviso of sub-section (2) of Section 27 of Karnataka Rent Act, a presumption arises in favour of landlord when an affidavit is filed indicating thereunder or stating hereunder that petition schedule premises is required for his or her bona fide use and occupation. It is no doubt true that all presumptions are reputable presumptions. In the instant case respondent having alleged in his statement of objections and also having reiterated the same in his evidence has utterly failed to prove there is no bona fide requirement in the claim made by the petitioner. It is not in dispute that petitioner is a Goldsmith by profession and it is also not in dispute that he is carrying on his business in his residential premises and as such he had sought for eviction of tenant from petition schedule premises for his bona fide requirement namely to carry on business in the petition schedule premises by expanding his existing business which he has been carrying at his residence. Thus bona fides came to be proved by petitioner and said evidence having been depreciated by Revisional Court the contention of respondent-tenant came to be negative and rightly so which finding does not suffer from any infirmity either on facts or law which calls for interference at the hands of this Court under Section 115 of CPC on the ground of material illegality or irregularity.

Insofar as contention regarding earnest money or deposit said to have been paid by respondent to the petitioner-landlord at the time of inception of lease is concerned, Trial Court has rightly noticed that as per the lease agreement Exhibit P. 6 there is no recital whatsoever with regard to alleged payment of Rs. 90,000/- as advance amount. Except the self-serving testimony of respondent there is no other evidence available on record to believe that respondent had paid a sum of Rs. 90,000/- to the petitioner at the time he was inducted as a tenant of the petition schedule premises. As such Trial Court has rightly disbelieved the same and attempt made by respondent-tenant through witness R.W. 2-Sri Praveen, S/o. Malleshappa to contend that there was payment of Rs. 90,000/- made by tenant to landlord has also not found favour by Trial Court and rightly so in view of Sections 91 and 92 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. No amount of oral evidence contrary to documentary evidence can be eschewed. As such Trial Court rightly negatived the claim of respondent with regard to alleged payment of advance amount of Rs. 90,000/- to landlord. There is no illegality committed by Trial Court on any ground.

Hence the following:

ORDER

Revision petition is hereby dismissed.

Order of eviction passed by Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sagar, dated 12-10-2012 in H.R.C. No. 6 of 2011 as affirmed by Revisional Court in HRC RR No. 22 of 2012, dated 9-9-2014 stands affirmed.