B. SRINATH Vs. S. MANJULA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition under Sec. 46(1) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, is filed challenging the order dtd. 19/8/2016 passed in H.R.C. No.22 of 2016 on the file of the Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru, whereby the petition filed by the respondent under Sec. 27(2)(r) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 was allowed and the petitioner herein was directed to quit, vacate and deliver the vacant possession of the petition schedule premises to the respondent- landlord within three months from the date of the order; so also, the petitioner-tenant was directed to pay the rent at Rs.3,000.00 per month from December-2014 till the date of delivery of the possession.

(2.) Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

(3.) In the cross-examination, the petitioner-tenant was examined as RW-1. He has categorically stated that he is constructing a shop in front of his house. The respondent- landlord has categorically stated that he requires the schedule premises for self-occupation to enable his son to carry on business in the field of insurance. Proviso to Sec. 27(2)(r) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 states that no order for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made on the ground that the tenant, within such time as may be specified by the Court, to comply with the condition imposed on the landlord and Sec. 27(2)(r) of the Act specifies that the premises let are required for self-occupation or for any member of his family. In the instant case, the landlord has specifically pleaded and adduced evidence to substantiate that the schedule premises is required for his son to carry on business in the field of insurance. The respondent-landlord has made out the case for vacating the tenant on the ground that he requires the schedule premises for occupation of his son as specified under Sec. 27(2)(r) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999. The Trial Court, after examining the evidence on record, has rightly passed the impugned order I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Trial Court.