R ABBAIAH REDDY Vs. UDAYA CHANDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN all these five petitions, petitioners-landlords are assailing to correctness of the order dated 27th November 2004 in HRC no. 1489/1996 (in HRRP No. 1:29/2005); in HRC No. 318/1997 (in HRRP No. 130/2005) and in HRC No. 320/1997 (in HRRP no. 131/2005) on the file of the E1 Additional Small Cause Judge, bangalore and the order dated 2nd July 2004, passed in HRC no. 1579/1996 (in HRRP No. 623/2004) and in HRC No. 236/ 1997 (in HRRP No. 621 /2004) ontthe file of the XII Additional Small cause Judge, Bangalore.

(2.) THE petitioner-landlord now represented by his legal representatives herein, has filed an eviction petition under Section 21 (1) (h) and (j) of the K. R. C. Act, 1961 and now under Section 27 (2) (e)and (r) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, against the respondents herein, in respect of the petition schedule premises called 'm. Ramaiah reddy Lines' situated at Nanjareddy Colony, Murugesh Palya, Hamlet of Kodihalli, Varthur Hobli Bangalore-17, on the ground that, the existing constructions of AC sheet roof and RCC roofing are not in good condition and which requires to be demolished and reconstructed and after such reconstruction, he is intending to make use of the schedule premises for his own use and occupation and to accommodate his son to do business and therefore, he has approached the respondents and other tenants and requested them to vacate the tenanted portions for the said purpose, but they were failed to vacate the same. Further, it is the case of the petitioner that the is having financial capacity to undertake the work of demolition and reconstruction and two of the tenants have accepted his request and vacated the same and therefore, he was constrained to file the instant petitions against the respondents, seeking eviction before the II and XII Additional Small Causes Court, bangalore. After the receipt of the summons issued by the II and XII additional Small Causes Court through the registry, respondents herein have appeared and filed their written statements, denying all the averments in toto and specifically contending that the petitions filed by the petitioner is not maintainable in law; and that there is no jural relationship of landlord and tenants between the petitioner and the respondents; and since the petitioner-landlord is not at all the owner or landlord of the schedule premises and they are not the tenants under him at any point of time, the question of demanding the rent by the petitioner does not arise. Based on the Readings of both the parties, the II Additional Small Cause Court in HRC No. 1489/1996 (in HRRP No. 129/2005); HRC No. 318/1997 (in HRRP No. 130/ 2005 and HRC No. 320/1997 (in HRRP No. 131/2005) has raised five points for its consideration which reads as follows:

(3.) DOES the petitioners prove that they require the schedule premises for their use and occupation and also use and occupation of their family members, and they are not having other reasonably suitable accommodation?