ATHIQ AHMED, Vs. SADANANDA R ,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition under Section 115 of CPC is directed against the order passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Shivamogga, in Revision Rent Petition No.12/2014 dated 18.07.2014 dismissing the revision petition and affirming the order passed by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Shivamogga dated 03.04.2013 in HRC No.11/2012, whereunder eviction petition filed by the landlord came to be allowed in part under Section 27(2)(h) & (r) of Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 (for short, Act ) and dismissing the petition filed under Section 27(2)(e).

(2.) BY consent of learned advocates appearing for the parties, this revision petition is taken -up for Final Hearing. I have heard the arguments of learned Advocates and perused the revision petition and the pleadings, depositions as well as exhibits made available by the learned advocates during the course of their argument.

(3.) THE facts in brief which has lead to filing of this revision petition can be crystallized as under and parties are referred to as per the rank in the court of first instance: - Petitioner sought for eviction of the Respondent by filing petition under Section 27(2)(e)(h) and (r) of the Act contending inter alia that he required the schedule premises for bonafide use and occupation along with the abutting premises after demolition and new construction for the purposes of conducting his jewellery business. He contended inter alia that respondent is a tenant of the schedule premises on a monthly rent of Rs.600/ - and respondent had agreed to vacate the schedule premises during June 2012 to enable the petitioner to put -up new construction after demolishing the existing old structure which was not adhered to and as such, after issuing quit notice, eviction petition was filed. Along with the eviction petition, an affidavit verifying the contents of the petition by reiterating the averments made in the petition also came to be filed. On service of summons, respondent appeared and filed objections statement denying the averments made in eviction petition. It was contended by the respondent that he had spent Rs.4,00,000/ - for interior decoration of schedule premises and had established his business and has earned great reputation and business in the schedule premises is being carried on from number of years. He also contended that one Sri. R. Manjunath had purchased the property from Manjuanth Shetty and Sri. Shabarish is the son of R. Manjunath and Sadanand is the brother of Sri. R. Manjunath and said Shabarish tried to forcibly evict the respondent, which was resisted to by him. On these grounds, respondent sought for dismissal of the petition. Parties tendered their evidence before trial court and petitioner got himself examined as PW.1 and got marked in all 20 documents as per Exs.P1 to P20. Respondent got himself examined as RW.1 and in support of his defence, he examined a witness by name Sri. P. Mohan as RW.2 and in all he got marked 4 documents as Exs.R1 to R4. Trial Court after considering the arguments advanced by learned advocates, formulated the following points for consideration: -