AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Jawad Rahim
The tenant is in revision against the order of eviction.
Heard learned counsel on both sides.
Petition is admitted and taken up for final disposal by consent.
From what learned counsel for the petitioner Sri. O. Shivarama Bhat and Sri. K. V. Narasimhan, learned counsel for the respondent have adverted to, it is noticed that one C. Naganna sought eviction of the petitioner T. Srinivasan from the premises described in the schedule or, the premise that T. Srinivasan is a tenant under him on a monthly rent of Rs. 1010/- in respect of the schedule premises comprising of limited accommodation of 15 ft x 5 feet. Presently, he is also in business and requires the premises in question for his own use and occupation. His son M.N. Bhaskar is doing tailoring business in the premises which is adjacent to the schedule premises. His family is facing great hardship and inconvenience to continue or develop the tailoring business in the residential portion and therefore, he requires the premises to continue his tailoring business. He had approached the tenant to vacate the premises which he agreed but failed The other ground is he is a senior citizen having crossed 65 years of age and his need is genuine and pressing.
All these ground were resisted by the petitioner/tenant. While admitting he is a tenant under him, he refuted all contentions that premises is required for own use arid occupation, In this regard, he denied that M.N. Bhaskar is carrying on tailoring business in residential premises. The tenant further averred that initially the rent was Rs. 450/- p.m. and he has paid Rs. 50,000/- towards the security deposit. Periodically the rent has been increased to Rs. 1,010/- p.m. He further averred that on 09.06.2008, the landlord had approached him for additional advance which he failed to pay. For this reason, eviction proceedings have been filed.
The parties went to trial and in support of material propositions in their pleading, they lead evidence. The respondent/landlord tendered evidence as PW1 and relied on five documents whereas the petitioner/tenant tendered his evidence as RW1 and relied on nine documents. The learned trial Judge considering the evidence so brought on record held it supports the contention of the respondent/landlord and allowed the petition discarding all defence. Assailing it, he was in revision before the Sessions Judge in Revision(Rent) Petition No. 1/2011 but the same has also been dismissed. Assailing both the orders, this revision is filed.
Sri O. Shivarama Bhat, learned counsel for the petitioner/tenant submits the need as projected by the respondent/landlord itself does not make the case for grant of order of eviction. Besides, the evidence of the petitioner/tenant has established that the premises next to the schedule premises has fallen vacant which the respondent/landlord has re-let it to somebody else. He further submits that really if the landlord was in need of accommodation, he would not have re-let that premises. Pointing out to the fact that the tenant is carrying or doth business which is only source of income, he seeks dismissal of petition.
In negation of all these contention, Sri. K.V. Narasimhan, learned counsel for the respondent/landlord submits that landlord has been very honest and co-operative with the tenant. He did not seek his eviction till now but now the time has come which has compelled him to seek his eviction. He denied the allegation of the tenant regarding his demand to pay additional advance amount In this regard, he submits landlord has substantiated that his son M.N. Bhaskar is striving to maintain the family through tailoring business that is carried on in the house. Further landlord has substantiated they require the schedule premises to support business which will help them earn better. So far as tenant is concerned, he draws my attention to the categoric admission of the landlord in his evidence that the very next building to the schedule premises is a building with three floors owned by the brother of the tenant which undoubtedly is available to him. On this basis, he submits that no hardship will be caused to the tenant if eviction order is sustained,
As could be seen from the submission of learned counsel on both sides, there is no dispute regarding jural relationship. While the landlord contends he has no alternative premises, the tenant contends he has one premises available. Evidence does not support the contention of the tenant in this regard. As regards availability of accommodation to tenant is concerned, though there is admission in evidence that his brother owns three storied building, it cannot be said that accommodation is available to the landlord for his use. But: the evidence on record supports respondent''s claim that he requires the premises for own use and occupation. The conclusion reached by the learned trial Judge that landlord has made out the case for grant of order of eviction for his bonafide own use and occupation finds full support from the evidence on record and I find no reason to interfere with such a finding. Hence, the impugned order is affirmed.
However, I am persuaded to accept the request of learned counsel for the petitioner/tenant Sri.O. Shivarama Bhat that a reasonable time may be granted to the tenant. He seeks three years lime which is opposed by the leaned counsel for the respondent/landlord Sri. K.V. Narasimhan. Considering the fact situation in which both parties are placed, the tenant is granted eighteen months time from today to quit and deliver the vacant possession of premises subject to payment of rents regularly as and when it accrues due without committing any default. He shall clear arrears of rent if any within a period of one month from now. In case If he commits default in payment of rent for a consecutive period of two months, then the benefit of extension of time granted by this Court shall stand revoked.
The tenant shall file an undertaking in the Registry of this Court undertaking to comply with the above conditions. Petition is disposed of in terms of this order.
Learned counsel for the petitioner/tenant tendered cash towards rent for three months which is received by the respondent/landlord.