Smt. Uma Sambhaji Mali vs Kumar Mahadev Pujari

A.S. Bopanna, J.—The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 22.07.2014 passed in HRC R P No. 2/2013.

The petitioner herein is the tenant in the premises belonging to the respondent herein. The jural relationship between the parties is not in dispute. The respondent seeking eviction of the petitioner herein had filed the petition in HRC No. 27/2010 under Section 27(2) (r) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, to direct the petitioner herein to vacate and hand over vacant possession of the petition schedule premises. The petitioner who had appeared in the said proceedings had opposed the petition. The parties in that regard had tendered evidence wherein the respondent was examined as PW-1 and the documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.5 were relied. The respondent herein was examined as RW-1 and the documents at Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.18 were relied upon.

The Court of the first instance after taking into consideration the rival contentions had arrived at the conclusion that the respondent herein had not made out a case of bona fide requirement of the premises and as such, the eviction order as sought cannot be granted. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed by the order dated 06.12.2012. The respondent claiming to be aggrieved filed the revision petition in HRC R.P. No. 2/2013. The revisional court by its order dated 22.07.2014 accepted the request of the respondent and directed the petitioner to vacate from the petition schedule premises. It is in that light, the petitioner is before this Court.

The learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the order passed by the revisional court would contend that the nature of the consideration as made by the revisional court to arrive at the conclusion that the premises is required by the respondent herein is not justified. It is his case that as against the admission made by the respondent before the eviction court with regard to the respondent possessing other properties, an application under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Code of the Civil Procedure was filed in the revision petition producing additional documents. It is his further contention that firstly the said document could not have been received by the revisional court. He further contends that even if some documents were taken on record, the matter should have been remitted for evidence as provided under Rule 28 to Order 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In that light, he contends that the revisional court without undertaking the said exercise proceeded to rely on the said document and upset the order passed by the eviction court. Hence, he contends that the order is not justified. Even otherwise, it is his case that the respondent had not made out a case to evict the petitioner and the revisional court therefore should have rejected the revision petition.

The learned counsel for the respondent would however seek to sustain the order passed by the revisional court. On the issue relating to the additional documents have been filed before the revisional court, it is his contention that the said documents were filed only by way of abundant caution since in any event the consideration as had been made by the eviction court with regard to the other properties owned by the respondent was only on an admission which had been made by him which was not the factual position at that stage since the other properties which were owned by him were already sold. In any event, it is his contention that the premises in question is required by the respondent and the petitioner herein will have to make other arrangements and the contention that she no source in that regard is not justified.

In the light of the rival contentions, I have perused the judgments passed by the eviction court as well as the revisional.court. From a perusal of the order passed by the eviction court, it is seen that after referring to the evidence, the ultimate conclusion of the court below is that the bona fide requirement not been proved. The main reason for arriving at such conclusion is that the respondent herein had owned other properties. It is no doubt true that the respondent in order to controvert the said finding of the eviction court relied on certain document before the revisional court with regard to the fact that the properties referred to therein did not still belong to him as the same had been sold. In a normal circumstance, an application filed under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure would have to be considered in the manner as been provided under the Code. However, what cannot be lost sight is also that in the instant case, the eviction proceedings being summary proceedings, the Court below in any event would have to consider the requirement as been indicated under the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999. The rigour of proving the bona fide requirement is not in the same manner as it was provided under the Act, 1961. In fact, the revisional court in that regard referred to a decision of this Court reported in 2003 (4) KCCR 2757 Rosaline Theresa Fernandes v. Sri. P.N. Appanna on that aspect of the matter and thereafter have noticed the case that been put forth by the respondent seeking vacant possession of the premises arrived at the said conclusion. Therefore, in the nature of the consideration as been made by the reference court, I see no error to interfere with the said order. That being so, the instant petition is devoid of merit.

However, taking into consideration the age of the petitioner and also keeping in view the fact that she would have to make alternate arrangement to secure another premises, the petitioner is granted nine months time to vacate from the petition schedule premises subject to the petitioner filing an undertaking affidavit in the registry within three weeks from the day of receiving a copy of this order, stating therein that she would voluntarily vacate at the end of nine months. If the petitioner does not choose to take the benefit of the time granted by this court and does not file such affidavit of undertaking in the registry, the respondent would be entitled to execute the order after lapse of the period of three weeks which been granted to the petitioner to file the undertaking affidavit.

In terms of the above, the petition stands disposed of.