MOHAMMED NASRULLA SHERIFF Vs. AZRA SHAMEEM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition under section 46 (1) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 is by the tenant who has suffered an order of eviction in terms of impugned order dated 14-8-2003 passed by the X Addl. Small Causes judge, Bangalore, in HRC No. 546/95 allowing the petition of the owner under section 27 (2) (r) of the Act which enables the landlord to seek eviction of the tenant for the bona fide use and occupation of the premises of the landlord and Section 31 of the Act which is a special provision in favour of the landlord who is a widow and can seek eviction of the tenant for her occupation with immediate possession of the premises if the premises is required by the landlord.

(2.) IT is this order which is questioned in this revision petition on the ground that the learned Judge of the trial Court has not taken into consideration the evidence on record. The fact that the petitioner whose requirement is pleaded has not entered the witness box by herself, should have been taken note of and hence, the learned Judge of the trial Court should have drawn adverse inference not doing so vitiates the order; that the order is not tenable under Section 27 (2) (r) of the Act; that the eviction petition should have been dismissed, is the case of the petitioner.

(3.) SRI Abhinav and Smt. Ujawala learned counsel appearing for the petitioner have therefore vehemently submitted that the trial judge has committed an error in allowing the petition under Section 27 (2) (r) of the Act. Sri. Abhinav submits that the petitioner never made out a case of her bona fide requirement to occupy the premises, her conduct was such that she has been obtaining permission only for the purpose of selling away the property and not for her own occupation; that the evidence let in on behalf of the eviction petitioner was not fully supportive of the case of the petitioner; that it is only the power of attorney who entered the witness box but the person who required the premises never entered the box and therefore the eviction petition should have been dismissed. It is submitted that non-examination or non-consideration of such relevant aspects even after order of eviction under Section 31, the order suffers from the same defect and therefore, the order is liable to be set aside.