CHANDANMAL PUKHRAJ AND OTHERS Vs. SMT. JATNABAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a tenants revision petition against the order of eviction made under Section 27(2)(c) and 27(2)(r) and also under Section 31(1)(c) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999. I have heard Sri Shanth Kumar, learned Counsel for petitioners-tenants and Sri V.B. Shiva Kumar, learned Counsel for respondent-landlady.

(2.) The learned Counsel for petitioners-tenants would submit that the landlady has failed to prove that petition schedule premises is required for her occupation and use. The Trial Court has ignored the fact that petitioner and her sons have not chosen to occupy premises which have fallen vacant during pendency of eviction petition. The Trial Court has not recorded any finding regarding non-availability of suitable premises. The findings recorded by the Trial Court that petitioners-tenants have sub-let premises is contrary to evidence on record. The learned Trial Judge should not have been swayed away by the fact that the landlady is a senior citizen, in the absence of proof of requirement.

(3.) The learned Counsel for respondent would justify the impugned order.