ZAKIR KHAN RULES Vs. BALAKRISHNA P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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.

(2.) 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.

(3.) 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.