G SHOUKATH Vs. V CHANDRAPRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A Single Bench of this Court has expressed doubts about the correctness of the view taken by another Single Bench regarding the true and correct interpretation of Section 27 (2) (r) of the Karnataka Rent act, 1999. The present reference to the Division Bench is aimed at providing an authoritative answer to the question that falls for determination in the following circumstances:

(2.) THE Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 inter alia regulated eviction of tenanta from the premises let out to them till the said Act was repealed by the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999. Section 70 (2) (b) of the repealing enactment provides for disposal of all cases and proceedings pending on the date of commencement of the said Act before any Court or Authority including the High Court, in accordance with the provisions of the new enactment. In M. R. Ramachandra v Shantakumari and another, the landlord was aggrieved of the dismissal of his case for eviction of the tenant on the ground of personal necessity pleaded by him. During the pendency of the landlord's revision petition, the karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 was repealed and the field covered by the new enactment which too provided for eviction of the tenants on grounds stipulated in Section 27 thereof. The revision petition coming up for hearing before A. V. Srinivasareddy, J. , as his Lordship then was, the Court noticed that the new enactment had brought about sweeping changes in "the provisions governing eviction of tenants. The Court held that in the light of Explanation I to Section 27 (2) (r) of the new Act, the landlord was not required to prove the reasonableness or the bona fides of his personal requirement, as he had to do, under the repealed enactment. The provisions of Section 27 (2) (r) read with the explanation to the same according to the Court gave rise to what was described as an irrefutable presumption in favour of the landlord that he did require the premises for his own occupation. The Court observed:

(3.) TO the same effect is the view taken by the learned Judge in a series of other cases involving the interpretation of the provisions of section 27 (2) (r) of the Act and the explanation to the same. Among them are the decisions rendered in Ananda Kumar B. Pirgal v A. K. Gangadharan, Srnt. K. N. Saraswathamma v Smt. Sarala, Smt. Yashoda Bai v Smt. Lakshmamma and Smt. Parvatamma v Sampath kumar.