B.S. VISHWANTHA GUPTHA Vs. RAFIQ AHAMAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the petitioner's Counsel and the respondents Counsel.

(2.) Petitioner is a tenant in Shop No. 5 situated in ground floor portion of Ghousia Complex Building, 1st Cross, Garden Area, Third Division, Shivamogga City. Respondents initiated eviction proceedings under Section 27(2)(r) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999. The Trial Court passed an order of eviction and challenging the same, the petitioner preferred a revision petition in the District Court, Shivamogga. By order dated 20-6-2017, the II Additional District Judge, Shivamogga, dismissed the revision petition and therefore the defendant is before this Court.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner argues that the petitioner filed two applications, one under Order 41, Rule 27 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 for production of additional evidence and another application under Rule 33 of the Karnataka Rent Rules, 2001 read with Section 151 of CPC for a direction to the respondents-landlords to keep Sri Mohammed Wasim present before the Court. He argues that the District Court did not decide these two applications while passing the impugned order. Even there is no reference to these two applications in the impugned order. Referring to Section 27(2) (r) of the Karnataka Rent Act, the learned Counsel argued that the landlord is not entitled to an order of eviction if another suitable accommodation is available to him. The reason for making an application under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC was to show that during the pendency of the revision before the District Court, three shops under the occupation of three other tenants fell vacant and that the respondents leased those shops to other tenants. If really the landlord wanted to accommodate his son in Shop No. 5 which is under the occupation of the petitioner, after the other shops fell vacant, the said son could have been accommodated in the other shops. It is a subsequent development that should have been considered by the District Court. He also argued that the son of the first respondent secured an employment at Dubai and therefore requirement as has been put forth by the respondents did not subsist during the pendency of the revision petition. This should have been taken note of Non-consideration of these aspects has resulted in failure of justice and therefore this petition is required to be allowed.