SARALA DEVI Vs. R K SAROJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed by the tenant challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru in HRC No.37/2015.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts are - the respondent herein sought for eviction of the petitioner from the petition schedule premises invoking the provisions of Section 27(2) (a), (c), (g) and (r) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999. The respondent is the absolute owner of the property bearing No.4/1, S K Garden Main Road, Benson Town, Bengaluru measuring East to West 30 feet and North to South 50 feet, totally measuring 1500/- sq.ft. It was the contention of respondent that the said suit property was left out to the petitioner to carry on business of STD/ISD telephone booth and for storage of cold items. It was further contended that the petitioner was irregular in payment of rent and had stopped the STD/ISD business and carrying on the business of bakery and condiments without the consent of petitioner. It was the main contention that the suit premises was required by the respondent for the purpose of starting business by her unemployed son to start a consultancy business. Hence, the respondent had requested the petitioner to quit, vacate and deliver the vacant possession of the suit premises. But the petitioner having not obliged, notice was issued. Despite service of notice, the petitioner had not vacated the schedule premises. Based on these factual grounds, the HRC petition was filed.

(3.) Sri. A. N. Gangadharaiah, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner assailing the impugned judgment and order would contend that the suit property is not required for the bona fide use and occupation of the respondent. However, the shops in the same premises were vacant and the respondent has not opted to take those shops for the business of her son. He contends that this petition is filed by the respondent seeking eviction of the suit premises only with an oblique motive to harass the petitioner. The petitioner is running a condiment shop in the suit property and is regular in making payment of rents. The petitioner's husband is suffering from heart ailment and her children are pursuing studies. They are eking out their livelihood from the business carried on in the said suit premises. In view of the alternate shops available to the respondent, there was no need to seek for bona fide use and occupation of her son. This vital aspect was not appreciated by the Court below in right perspective and the order directing the petitioner to vacate and handover the suit premises to the respondent within a period of four months from the date of order is causing hardship to the petitioner resulting in miscarriage of justice and accordingly, he seeks for setting aside the impugned judgment and order and to allow the revision petition. In support of his contention, learned Counsel places reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kempaiah v. Lingaiah and others, 2002 AIRKarR 233.