PARASMAL JAIN Vs. M NUSRUTHULLA SHARIFF & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order passed by the II Additional Small Causes Judge, Bengaluru on an application filed under Order 6, Rule 17 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure in HRC No.259/2011 whereby the said application is rejected.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts are the respondents herein filed a suit for eviction under Section 27(2)(r) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 against the petitioner herein. The petitioner entered appearance and disputed the jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the respondents and the petitioner. In the said proceedings in HRC No.259/2011, the petitioner filed I.A. under Order 6, Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure to amend its statement of objections submitting that the respondents owned other properties of their own at Bengaluru City and other places. In view of the alternative accommodation available to the respondents, no bona fide requirement is found to evict the petitioner from the suit premises. The said application came to be rejected. Hence, this petition.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the question involved in this petition is technical. The property at Sultanpet at Bengaluru, which consists of Ground Floor with three additional floors is very well available to the respondents. This fact having come to the knowledge of the petitioner subsequent to filing of the written statement, the same was sought to be amended by incorporating these new facts, which was not appreciated by the trial court and ignoring the technical aspect involved in the matter, rejected the application contrary to the well established principles of law. Learned counsel further submits that HRC Nos.260/2011 and 261/2011 filed by the respondents seeking the premises for bona fide use were rejected by the trial Court. Thus, he seeks for setting aside the impugned order.