R. Ramanna Rangappa vs Smt. Rajammanni

A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J.—The tenant of a shop premises governed by the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 (for short ''the Act'') has filed this petition. The landlady of the shop premises i.e., the respondent herein, filed the petition, under Section 27(2)(b)(j) and (r) of the Act, to direct the petitioner to pay arrears of rent of Rs. 12,400/-, for the period from June, 2005 to December, 2007 and also quit and deliver vacant possession of the petition schedule shop premises. Eviction was sought on the ground, that her son is a dealer in cement and construction materials and carries on business in a rented premises on Bull Temple Road and O.S.No.7224/2007 having been filed by the landlord thereof, he has to vacate, and as the petition schedule shop premises located in a cross road is convenient for his business.

The tenant filed statement of objections and contested the case. Son of the owner of the premises, for whose benefit the eviction of tenant was sought and in whose favour a deed of general power of attorney was executed by the landlady, deposed as PW 1 and marked Exs.P1 to P9. The tenant got himself examined as RW1. The Court Commissioner appointed to conduct local inspection has deposed as CW1 and during his examination, Exs.C 1 to C9 have been marked.

By consideration of the pleadings, the evidence and the arguments of learned advocates, following points were raised for consideration by the Court below:

i) Whether petitioner proves that father of the respondent No.l was the tenant of the petition schedule shop since 1962 on monthly rent of Rs. 40/- and even after the death of father of respondent No.1, he continued to be tenant on monthly rent of Rs. 400/- for running his business of dry cleaning and subsequently she came to know that respondent No. 1 has sublet the schedule premises to some other agency on monthly rent of Rs. 5000/-?

ii) Whether the petitioner further proves that the petition shop premises is required for bona fide use and occupation who is a dealer in cement and construction materials and carrying on business in rented premises bearing No. 132, Bull Temple Road, Bangalore?

iii) Whether the petitioner proves that respondent No. 1 is a chronic defaulter in the matter of payment of rent and he is in arrears of rent of Rs. 12,400/- from June, 2005 till the date of petition and she is entitled to recover the same?

iv) Whether the petitioner is entitled for a direction to the respondents to quit and deliver vacant possession of the petition shop premises?

v) Whether the 1st respondent proves that the petition schedule shop premises measures more than 14 sq.mts. and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this petition and grant the relief?

vi) What order?

Point Nos. 1 and 3 were answered partly in the affirmative and partly in the negative. Point No.2 was answered by holding that the petition shop premises is required for the bona fide use and occupation of the son of the landlady, who is a dealer in cement and construction materials and carries on business in a rented premises bearing No. 132, Bull Temple Road, Bengaluru. Point No.5 was answered in the negative. Point No.4 was answered in favour of the landlady by holding that she is entitled for the direction to the tenant to quit and deliver vacant possession of the petition shop premises. As a result, the petition was allowed and the tenant, found to be in arrears of rent of Rs. 6,800/- was directed to quit and deliver vacant possession of the petition shop premises. This petition was filed to set aside the said order.

Respondent No.2 in the Court below, Smt. Chikkathayamma i.e., mother of the tenant, having died prior to filing of this revision petition, the tenant alone has filed this petition.

Sri. S. Gangadhara Aithal, learned advocate submitted that there is no proper consideration of the case by the Court below. He further submitted that separate findings ought to have been recorded on each of the grounds, under which eviction was sought and the omnibus order passed being erroneous is liable to be set aside.

Sri. V. B. Ravishanker, learned advocate for the respondent conceded that the ingredients of Section 27(2)(b) of the Act has not been established and submitted that the prayer for eviction sought on the said ground is not pressed. Learned counsel submitted that there being credible evidence with regard to PW1 carrying on business in a rented premises i.e., at No. 132, Bull Temple Road and his landlord having filed O.S.No.7224/2007 for passing a decree of ejectment and there being specific admission of RW1 with regard to he owning shop premises at No.62, Appu Rao Road, Trial Court is justified in directing the tenant to quit and deliver vacant possession of the petition shop premises. Learned counsel submitted that the allowing of petition filed under Section 27(2)(j) and (r) of the Act is justified, as the findings are well supported by credible evidence and hence, revision petition be dismissed with costs.

Considered rival submissions and perused the record. Points for consideration are "whether the eviction of the petitioner ordered by the Trial Court suffers from any material irregularity and whether the findings recorded with respect to the eviction sought under ; Section 27(2)(j) and (r) suffer from perversity?"

There is no dispute with regard to the jural relationship of landlady and tenant between the parties. PW1 is the son of landlady, and carries on business in cement and construction materials in rented premises. His land-lord sought decree of ejectment in O.S. No.7224/2007. RW1 has categorically admitted that "his father took the schedule premises on lease in the year 1962 from the husband of the petitioner to run Dhobi Shop in the name and style as "Jyothi Dry Cleaner" and that he expired on 21.10.1998". He has admitted that after the death of petitioner''s husband, "his father was paying rents to the petitioner". He has further admitted, "that during the life time of his father he was running Dhobi Shop in Vishweswarapuram". That apart, RW1 has categorically admitted as follows:-

"It is true to suggest that in property No.62, Appu Rao Road, I have got a commercial and residential premises. I purchased this property in the year 1974. It is true to suggest that there were two shops in the ground floor of this property. I do not know whether I have taken permission from the petitioner to run the business in Mobiles against the running of Dhobi Shop".

RW1 is also an Advocate, which is clear from the fact that he had filed vakalath in HRC No.509/2005.

Having regard to the above, eviction order passed by the Court below, under Section 27(2)(j) and (r) of the Act, is well founded.

During the course of hearing, it became clear that the petitioner is due in a sum of Rs. 21,200/- to the respondent towards rent. Sri S. Gangadhara Aithal, submitted that the amount would be paid to the respondent, before the end of August, 2016.

Having regard to the evidence of PW 1 and the proof produced with regard to he being in occupation of a rented premises and the need of the petition shop premises for his bona fide use and occupation and the categorical admission of RW1, with regard to he owning a separate premises i.e., both commercial and residential, the judgment passed by the Court below, directing his eviction is neither arbitrary nor perverse much less capricious. Hence, there is no justification to interfere with the order directing eviction, as a whole.

In view of the above, it is ordered as follows:

HRC No. 10010/2008 on the file of XV Additional Small Causes Judge, Mayo Hall, Bengaluru (SCCH 19) stands allowed in respect of relief claimed under Section 27(2) (j) and (r) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999. However, the prayer made under Section 27(2)(b) of the Act stands disposed of as not pressed. The amount of rent deposited be released in favour of Smt. Rajammanni, the landlady. The petitioner shall pay the accumulated amount of arrears of Rs. 21,200/- before 31st August, 2016. Order of eviction of the petitioner from the petition schedule premises, passed by the Court below is upheld.

However, in view of the fact that the premises in question is being used by the tenant for commercial purpose and in the peculiar circumstances of the case, the tenant is given time till 31.07.2018 to vacate the same on furnishing an undertaking in usual terms before this Court, within a period of three weeks from today. In case of default to file the undertaking, and within the said period, the respondent is entitled to execute the decree and recover the possession, without waiting for the expiry of the aforesaid period.

The revision petition is disposed of accordingly:

No costs.