JAYANTILAL CHANDULAL KOTHARI Vs. C K RADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is filed by the respondent challenging the order dated 5-4-2007 passed in HRC. No. 200/2002 by the chief Judge of Small Causes at Bangalore.

(2.) FOR the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their status before the trial Court.

(3.) THE relevant facts are that the petitioner had filed a petition under Section 40 of the karnataka Rent Act, 1999 (for the sake of brevity called "rent Act, 1999") contending that he is the absolute owner in respect of the schedule properties bearing Nos. 137 and 19 being a composite property situated at 1st main Road, Seshadripuram, Bangalore-20 and 1st Main Road, Srirampuram, Bangalore-20. The said property was gifted to the petitioner by way of a Registered Gift Deed dated 30-12-1999 by his father. That the petitioner had got issued a notice on 6-3-2002 and the same was received by the respondent on 8-3-2002 calling upon the respondent to attorn tenancy and also to pay arrears of rent. The schedule premises was leased by the father of the petitioner to one C. N. Keshavamurthy under a deed of lease dated 1-4-1977 and the property leased was two vacant sites, that the purpose of the lease was to carry on business in retail timber. As per the terms of the lease, the respondent could put up temporary structures to carry on his business during the subsistence of lease period and the monthly rent was Rs. 650/- per month. According to the petitioner, since the schedule premises was required by his father for putting up a commercial complex. O. S. No. 2655/1999 was failed on the file of City Civil Court, Bangalore, but the same was withdrawn as not pressed. It was contended in the eviction petition that the schedule premises was required by the petitioner for putting up a commercial complex on the entire schedule premises and he had already made arrangements to obtain necessary plan and licence from the corporation of city of Bangalore and he had possessed sufficient funds for the proposed construction and if needed his father was willing to support financially. He therefore sought possession of the schedule premises by filing a petition under Section 40 of the Rent Act, 1999.