Smt. Gulsheerunnisa vs M. Srinivas

Jawad Rahim

Order of eviction is questioned by the tenant.

Heard learned counsel on both sides touching merit. The petition is admitted and taken up for final disposal.

From what the learned counsel have adverted to, undisputed facts emerging are:

a) Petitioner is tenant and was inducted by one Muninagappa (father of respondent) in respect of a shop premises in APMC Yard, Yeshwanthpur, Bangalore. Having obtained trader''s licence, she claims to be doing business for over three decades. Respondent-M. Srinivas claiming to the have succeeded to the property in question, sought her eviction on the plea he requires the premises for his own use and occupation. He did mention that initially rent was Rs. 750/- p.m. and was enhanced to Rs. 4,000/- p.m.

b) He averred in the petition that she is carrying on business in potatoes and other agricultural products, but highlighted his need as most urgent and pressing.

c) Petitioner resisted eviction action describing the move to be with sinister design to extract higher rent rather than to occupy. She also averred she has a large clientele and does business on cash and credit; huge amounts are to be recovered from customers and in this situation, if she is asked to vacate, there will be huge monetary loss which will be incompensatable in terms of money. Pleading hardship, she sought dismissal of the suit.

d) She alleged landlord was responsible for failure by the secretary of APMC for renewal of licence which necessitated in filing of W.P.7744/08, and only on the court''s direction, licence was renewed.

e) Based on the material propositions in the pleadings, parties went to trial. Plaintiff tendered evidence as PW1 and defendant examined her husband as her attorney.

f) The learned trial judge analyzing the evidence, found respondent-landlord''s evidence outweighs the defence and decreed the suit which is assailed in this revision.

In this petition, there is no doubt reiteration of all grounds urged before the trial court. In a case of this nature, it is immaterial whether the landlord bona fide needs the premises or whether there is honesty in his claim, or even whether it is pressing or urgent. Eviction is as permissible under the Transfer of Property Act. Therefore, all that the trial court had to do was to see whether there was valid termination of tenancy in accordance with law and in this regard limited defence could not have been ignored.

Be that as it may, respondent-landlord has brought out that petitioner-tenant is in possession of another premises in the same area which is used as godown and has obtained licence for occupation of that premises. Learned trial judge has examined these aspects emerging from evidence and I am satisfied all these facts have transformed into legally acceptable evidence. Since the evidence on record supports cause of action raised by the plaintiff, the unavoidable consequence was, suit had to be decreed. That could not have been avoided by a mere feeble defence that intention of the landlord was to extract higher rent. I, therefore, find no merit in the contentions urged against the reasoning assigned by the trial judge which is just and proper and after appreciating evidence in the correct perspective. I find no merit in the revision to interfere with the impugned order. It is thus affirmed.

However, I am persuaded to accept the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the premises in question is a shop where the petitioner is engaged in commercial activity to eke out a livelihood. Merely because she has another premises which is in fact used as a godown, it cannot be said she can be summarily evicted. She needs to be given reasonable time. The trial court was miserly in fixing two months time to vacate, ignoring the fact that it is her only source of income and there are contingencies which have to be overcome. In the circumstances, petitioner is granted 10 more months time to quit, deliver and vacate possession of the premises to the landlord subject to payment of rents regularly without committing any default. In case she commits default in paying rent for two months consecutively, she shall lose the benefit of unexpired period granted by this court and will be liable to be evicted immediately. If there is any arrears of rent, the same shall be acquired within one month from today.