PADMAMMA Vs. K RAMANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is filed under Section 46(1) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 being aggrieved by the order passed by the X Addl. Small Causes Judges, Bangalore in H.R.C.No. 1340/96.

(2.) THE eviction petition was filed by landlord before the trial Court under Section 21(1)(a)(h) and (p) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 during the year 1996 stating that the tenant is in occupation of the petition premises on a monthly rental of Rs.300/- and she has become chronic defaulter in paying the rentals and is due in a sum of Rs.1,200/- by the end of June" 06; the family of the landlord consists of three sons and a daughter, out of them two sons are married and the premises in which they are residing is too small to accommodate all the family members and accordingly sought for eviction on the ground of bonafide use and occupation. Further, according to the landlord, the tenant has also occupied an alternative premises in the name of her son nearby the petition premises. THE said petition was resisted by the tenant. According to her, there are 7 tenements in the ground floor and 7 tenements in the first floor and all the premises belong to the landlord and the premises in occupation of the other tenants is more suitable and he could have opted for those premises. Further her contention is that the petition premises was allotted to her husband by the Rent Controller on 3.12.87 and since she refused to pay the higher rent, the eviction petition is filed. THE trial Court, after enquiry, passed an order of eviction of the ground of requirement and dismissed the claim of the landlord in so far as the arrears of rent and availability of alternative accommodation to the tenant. Having suffered an order of eviction the tenant is before this Court.

(3.) PER-contra, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-landlord has submitted that the landlord is residing in a rented premises elsewhere and he is in need of the petition premises for his bonafide use and occupation since he has got three sons and a daughter and also the original tenancy is in favour of the husband of the tenant, he did in the year 1993 itself and subsequently, it has been continued by his wife and as per the mandate under Section 5 of the Act, the landlord is entitled for eviction on completion of 5 years from the date of death of the original tenant. Accordingly, contended that there is no merit in the revision filed. In support of his argument he relied upon the judgment reported in 2003(1) KCCR 714 in the case of Taradevi and Another Vs. Sakku Bai and Another and also one more judgment reported in 2004(3) KCCR 1561 in the case of Smt.K.S.Nagamma Vs. Mrs.M.P. Manekshah regarding application of Section 5 of the Act.