CHANDRA KUMAR Vs. SMT. U.V. REKHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent-tenant in HRC No. 20 of 2013 on the file of learned I Additional Civil Judge, Shivamogga, has come up in this revision petition challenging the order of eviction dated 17-7-2014, which is confirmed by order dated 14-3-2016 passed in Revision (Rent) No. 16 of 2014 on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Shivamogga.

(2.) Admittedly, respondent herein is the landlady. Revision petitioner is tenant of a non-residential shop premises (Malige No. 4) bearing new Assessment No. 438/899 situate in 2nd Cross, Savarline Road, Shivamogga City. Admittedly, the property comprising of petition shop earlier belonged to husband of the petitioner, late U.S. Vijendra. After his demise, respondent herein - Smt. U.V. Rekha and her son, Sri U.V. Pramod, have inherited the said property and khata of the same is standing in their name. It is not in dispute that the larger property owned by respondent-landlady consists of ten tenements, out of which, a non-residential shop bearing No. 4 is let out to revision petitioner-tenant on a monthly rent. The tenancy is not in dispute. The respondent-landlady has initiated proceedings through her power of attorney holder, who is none other than her son, in HRC No. 20 of 2013 seeking eviction of the revision petitioner-tenant from the petition schedule shop, where he is said to be running tailoring business under the name and style 'Chandra Khaja Center'. The litigation is initiated in the year 2013.

(3.) The material on record would indicate that prior to filing of the petition for eviction, the respondent-landlady has made arrangement for taking up construction of multistoried building on the said property in order to set up a nursing home. In that connection, as existing building is required to be demolished, she has initiated eviction proceedings against all the tenants including revision petitioner, who is tenant in respect of Shop No. 4. It has come on record that two tenants of Shop Nos. 2 and 10 have already vacated their respective shops and in respect of remaining seven tenants other than the revision petitioner (respondent in HRC No. 20 of 2013), eviction orders have been passed and they have agreed to vacate their respective shops within a time frame.