BABURAO GANPATRAO TIRMALLE Vs. BHIMAPPA VENKAPPA KANDAKUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) this is a proceeding initiated by the landlord under Section 21(1)(j) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act. The application was filed on 22-6-1981. The premises is a non-residential building. The landlord wanted to demolish the premises and put up a new structure and he offered to give the tenant the ground floor of an equa l extent occupied by him after reconstruction. The tenant disputed the genuineness of the claim made by the landlord. He also pleaded that the landlord is in the habit of evicting the tenant, demolishing the structures and not putting up any other building in the same premises. He cited an earlier proceeding initiated by the landlord as h.r.c. No. 30 of 1969 under Section 21(1)(h) and (j) claiming for possession of the premises for self-occupation after demolition and reconstruction. He alleged that the landlord had taken possession of the premises in june, 1978, but he never demolished the structure nor did he put up any construction. This, according to him, is an instance to show that the allegation of the landlord for possession is wanting in bona fides.

(2.) the trial court considered the question. It held that the need alleged by the landlord is bona fide and reasonable and that the eviction can be granted under Section 21(1)(j). The eviction was ordered accordingly. The matter was taken in revision by the tenant before the district court under Section 50 of the Rent Control Act. The district judge after considering the respective case, allowed the revision and dismissed the application. In coming to the said conclusion, the district judge was persuaded by the circumstances that in an earlier proceedings initiated by the landlord, he had taken possession of the premises, but had not put up any construction and, therefore, the present attempt might be a mere ruse to evict the tenant. It, therefore, held that the claim is neither bona fide nor reasonable and hence no eviction can be granted under Section 21(1)(j) of the Rent Control Act. It did not accept the contention of the landlord that the earlier proceeding was for eviction invoking Section 21(1)(h) as well and hence the landlord need not necessarily demolish the premises and reconstruct the same; he can as well occupy the premises as it is. It also noticed that the landlord has not produced the estimate of the new building nor that the licence obtained for the new construction to be made. It also held that there is no proof regarding the financial capacity of the landlord to construct a new building. On these circumstances, the learned district judge held that the claim made under Section 21(1)(j) cannot be sustained. Accordingly, he dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the Order, the landlord has come up in revision.

(3.) Section 21(1)(j) provides that when a landlord reasonably and bona fide requires the premises for the immediate purpose of demolishing the same and such demolition is to be made for the purpose of erecting a new building in place of the premises sought to be demolished, then he is entitled to evict the tenant. In this behalf the condition to be satisfied by the landlord is that the requirement should be a reasonable and bona fide need. Then again the landlord should also show that he requires the premises for immediate demolition and for reconstruction. If these elements are satisfied, then the landlord earns a right to evict the tenant. One may notice that the right of eviction conferred on a landlord under Section 21(1)(j) is not unbridled but controlled by sections 26, 27 and 28. It is fairly clear from the sections that a tenant who has been dispossessed in exercise of the right of landlord under Section 21(1)(j) is entitled for re-entry of the premises after it is reconstructed as contemplated by the statute. It also gives certain rights to the tenants to claim restoration in the event the landlord fails to restore possession. In this background, one has to view the provision in a beneficial manner both to the landlord as well as to the tenant. In doing so, we have to keep in mind that Section 21(1)(j) of the ACT is not intended for any capricious or whimsical eviction of tenants on the pretext of demolition of structure and reconstruction. Perhaps, it may be reasonable to assume that the landlord has a duty to satisfy the immediate requirements contemplated by the proviso. He has to show to the court that there exists an approved plan that the building is required for the immediate purpose of demolition and which is required for the purpose of erecting a new building. In Panchmal Narayana Shenoy v. Basthi Venkatesha Shenoy, his lordship Justice vaidialingam, speaking for the bench, stated thus in relation to Section 21(1)(j) of the instant act: