P. RAMANJANEYULU Vs. SHIVAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition, being listed for necessary orders/ hearing on an interlocutory application filed by the respondent No.1 for vacating of the interim order, is taken for final disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) A tenant has preferred this revision petition calling in question the order dated 11.09.2015 in HRC No.1/2012, on the file of the First Additional Civil Judge and JMFC at Bellary (for short, 'the Rent Court') and the order dated 11.04.2017 on the file of the Principal District Judge at Bellary (for short, 'the Revision Court'). The Rent Court has directed the petitioner and his sub-tenant (the respondent No.2) to vacate and handover vacant possession of the residential premises bearing Door No.17/2, measuring east to west 15 ft. and north to south 16 ft. (for easy reference is referred to as 'the subject property') allowing petition in HRC No.1/2012 filed by respondent No.1 under the provisions of Section 27(2)(r) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 2001 (for short, 'the Rent Act').

(3.) The respondent No.1 filed such eviction petition in HRC No.1/2012, as aforesaid under the provisions of Section 27(2)(r) of the Rent Act, asserting that her son's family, comprising of himself, his wife and children, reside along with her in the premises bearing Door No.31. This premises is dilapidated and congested for them, and they need the subject premises for their own residential use as well as additional premises for stocking Fruits as her son is in the business of fruit vending. The petitioner, and the respondent No.2, the sub-tenant contested the petition denying that the petitioner required the subject premises for her bonafide requirement.