Zakir Khan R. vs Balakrishna P.

Aravind Kumar, J.—These three revision petitions are filed by respondent-tenants against the order passed by Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes,-Bangalore dated 11.07.2014 in HRC Nos. 235/2012, 236/2012 & 238/2012 whereunder eviction petitions filed by petitioner-landlord came to be allowed under Section 27(2)(r) and Section 31(1)(c) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') by granting three months time to respondent-tenants to quit, vacate and handover vacant possession of respective portion of petition schedule premises to landlord.

It was contended by petitioner-landlord before trial Court that he is a retired employee of HMT, Bangalore and respondent are tenants of schedule premises having been inducted in the year 1998 and the present rent is Rs. 1,600/- per month, Rs. 1,750/- per month and Rs. 1,275/- per month respectively. He also contended that he has two children namely, B. Kiran Kumar and B. Rashmi who are married and his son is working in Airtel Mobile Company and his son and daughter-in-law are residing in a rented house in Ramamurthy Nagar. He has also contended that his daughter-in-law is a software Engineer and their grand son is looked after by himself and his wife. He has further contended that his daughter is married and living with her husband in a different house in R.T. Nagar. It was further contended that he has obtained approved plan from BBMP for demolition and re-construction of the entire building as per Ex. P-4 and building is to be constructed on or before 13.08.2014, till which period approved plan is valid and as such, he requires the petition schedule premises for his bonafide use and occupation.

On service of suit summons, respondent-tenants (revision petitioners herein) appeared and filed statement of objections denying the averments made in the respective eviction petitions contending inter alia that Section 31(1)(c) of the Act can be invoked only once by the landlord and not by filing successive petitions and there are no bonafides in the claim made by the petitioner-landlord. It was also contended that petitioner''s son who is married is residing separately in his own house at Ramamurthynagar, Bangalore and they are not residing along with petitioner and they have their own accommodation. It was also contended that petitioner''s son is working at Davanagere and as such, contention of the petitioner that he requires petition schedule premises is not bonafide and the plea of landlord that his daughter and son-in-law are also required to be accommodated in the petition schedule premises came to be denied. They contended that daughter and son-in-law are not dependent on the petitioner-landlord. They also contend that condition of the building is good and there was no need for demolition of the said building. On these grounds, they sought for dismissal of the eviction petitions.

Both petitioner and respective respondents got themselves examined before trial Court in support of their contentions raised in the pleadings and also tendered documentary evidence to substantiate their claim. After considering the pleadings and on evaluation of entire evidence tendered by the parties, trial Court allowed the eviction petitions and directed the respondents to quit, vacate and deliver vacant possession of the petition schedule premises to the petitioner-landlord by granting three months time. It is this order which has been assailed in the present revision petitions.

Though Sri Amaresh Angadi, learned Advocate appearing for revision petitioners-tenants canvassed his arguments in these petitions initially, he fairly submitted that revision petitioners are ready and willing to quit, vacate and handover vacant possession of the petition schedule premises if reasonable time of one year is granted to them. Sri Dorai Babu, learned Advocate appearing for respondent-landlord though was initially reluctant to this proposition, later on agreed to grant time of one year to revision petitioners subject to revision petitioners filing an affidavit of undertaking to which Sri Amaresh Angadi, learned Advocate appearing for revision petitioners has agreed.

Hence, their submissions are placed on record.

Sri Dorai Babu, learned Advocate appearing for respondent-landlord has also brought to the notice of this Court the order passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in HRRP No. 32/2014 and 33/2014 dated 24.04.2014 whereunder in respect of adjacent portions, an order of eviction passed by trial Court came to be confirmed by dismissing the revision petitions and enlarging the time to tenant to quit, vacate and handover possession by granting one year''s time.

In that view of the matter, I am of the considered view that time sought for by Sri Amaresh Angadi, learned Advocate appearing for revision petitioners deserves to be granted in these petitions also subject to conditions.

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

(1) Revision petitions stand disposed of by affirming the order passed by the Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore dated 11.07.2014 in HRC Nos. 235/2012, 236/2012 & 238/2012, insofar as allowing petitions filed under Section 27(2)(r) and Section 31(1)(c) of the Act and ordering for eviction of revision petitioners.

(2) Time granted by the trial Court is enlarged to the revision petitioners by granting time till 31.10.2015 to quit, vacate and handover vacant possession of respective portions of petition schedule premises subject to:

(i) Revision petitioners filing an affidavit within one week from today undertaking to quit, vacate and handover vacant possession of petition schedule premises to respondent-landlord and undertaking to comply with the following conditions by them.

(a) Revision petitioners continuing to pay the agreed rent punctually without any default within 10th of every succeeding month.

(b) Revision petitioners undertaking not to induct or sub-let or handover petition schedule premises to any third parties.

(c) Revision petitioners undertaking not to drive the respondent-landlord to initiate execution proceedings for taking possession of the petition schedule premises.

(3) It is needless to state that advance or security deposit paid by respective revision petitioners/tenants at the time of inception of the tenancy shall be refunded by respondent-landlord at the time of revision petitioners handing over vacant possession of the petition schedule premises to him.