B R ARUNKUMAR Vs. YESHODHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition filed by the unsuccessful tenant-revision petitioner to set aside the order dated 15-2-2005 passed by the II Addl. Small Causes Judge, Bangalore in HRC. No. 644/2000 whereby and whereunder the Court-below allowed the eviction petition filed by the respondent in part under Sections 27 (2) (r) and 31 of K. R. Act of 1999 but dismissed the eviction petition filed under Section 27 (2) (a) and (m) of K. R. Act of 1999. Further the revision petitioner-tenant was directed to quit and vacate the petition schedule premises on or before 15-4-2005. Assailing the same, he has come up with this revision petition.

(2.) THE case of the respondent herein is that she is the owner of the petition schedule premises namely, P-15, 2nd cross, 4th Main, nagappa Block, Bangalore-560 021 which is called as 'rama Nilaya'. The revision petitioner is a tenant who is in occupation of the said premises who had entered into an agreement dated 8-8-1997 for a period of eleven months on a monthly rent of Rs. 3250/- plus water charges of Rs. 70/- per month and has to pay electricity bills upto date. Since the respondent being a widow had also told the revision petitioner-tenant that the premises is required for the bona fide use and occupation of her handicapped daughter to start computer business but the revision petitioner requested for time. Since the revision petitioner was not regular in payment of arrears of rent, he is a chronic defaulter. Initially the landlady filed a petition under Section 21 (1) (a) (d) and (h)of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 and during the pendency of the eviction petition, new Act came into force. Therefore the petition was deemed to be filed under Section 27 (2) (a) (m) and (r) and also under Section 31 of the said Act. The defence taken by the revision petitioner-tenant before the trial Court is that the entire property consists of residential unit i. e. two units in the ground floor, two units in the first floor and two units in the second floor and the respondent is in occupation of the one unit in the first floor. The respondent and her family members are residing in a portion of the ground floor and all other four portions are in the occupation of the tenants and the respondent is in the habit of demanding higher rent, since the revision petitioner refused to comply with the demand, therefore she has started harassing the tenants.

(3.) IT is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner Smt. Nandana for Sri D. R. Ravishankar that the respondent is a widow and she is having a handicapped daughter who is unable to climb the stairs to the first floor which is in occupation of the revision petitioner-tenant. It is argued that the petition schedule premises is a residential one and no steps have been taken to convert the residential premises into a non-residential one. Moreover, the admissions of PW. 2 clearly shows that she is unable to climb the stairs. The trial court did not believe the version of the revision petitioner that he was always regular in paying the rent. The trial Court was wrongly allowed the petition under S. 27 (2) (r) and s. 31 of K. R. Act of 1999 though the respondent has not placed sufficient materials to show that the petition schedule premises is required for her handicapped daughter to start business in computers. There are no issues or points raised by the trial Court regarding seeking permission to convert the premises into a commercial one by the respondent-landlady. The trial Court fails to consider the fact that during the pendency of the eviction petition some portions which were in the occupation of the tenants fell vacant and when there is a suitable accommodation for the respondent the respondent did not occupy it as she is very particular to evict the revision petitioner. She can accommodate her family members for residential purpose but not for commercial purposes since she has not obtained permission for demolition and reconstruction and the trial Court has not properly considered the suitability of the petition schedule premises and availability of other suitable accommodation. This aspect has not been properly considered and passed impugned order against the revision petitioner who is a tenant in the petition schedule premises from 1977. Since the revision petitioner is unable to meet the abnormal rent demanded by the respondent, therefore the respondent-landlord filed this eviction petition. The purpose for which the eviction sought for has not been proved by the respondent but the trial Court wrongly came to the conclusion that the petition schedule premises is more suitable for her occupation and for the occupation of the family members which is not proper. Hence learned Advocate prays to set aside the order passed by the trial Court under S. 27 (2) (r) of K. R. Act.