M/S. KAVITHA CYCLE MART v. SRI. CHANDRAKANTHARAJU

SRI. RAJENDRA KUMAR JAIN, SHOP NO. 11, GROUND FLOOR, MUNICIPAL NO. 48 OF 46, 47 AND 48, SITUATED AT DIWAN KHAN LANE, CHICKPET CROSS, BANGALORE - 560 053. (BY SRI. H.J. SANGHVI, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. CHANDRAKANTHARAJU, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, S/O LATE GOVINDARAJU, RESIDING AT NO. N-43, 3RD MAIN, 10TH CROSS, J.P. NAGAR, 1ST STAGE, SARAKKI, BANGALORE - 78. (BY SMT. LATHA G, ADVOCATE) ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT THIS HRRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.46 OF THE KARNATAKA RENT ACT., 1999 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED

01.09.2017 PASSED IN HRC.NO.87/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE CHIEF JUDGE COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU, - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:38774 HRRP No. 24 of 2018 C/W HRRP No. 5 of 2018 ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SEC.27(2)(r) OF KARNATAKA RENT ACT., 1999 FOR EVICTION. THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL COMMON ORDER Heard learned counsel Sri. H.J. Sanghvi appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel Smt. Latha G. for the respondent.

2. This revision petition is filed by the tenants challenging the order of eviction passed in HRP No.91/2016 on the file of the Principle Judge, Small Cause Court, Bengalure dated 01.04.2018.

3. Parties are referred to as landlord and tenants for the sake of convenience as per their original ranking before the Trial Court. - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:38774 HRRP No. 24 of 2018 C/W HRRP No. 5 of 2018

4. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the case are as under: Landlord claiming to be the absolute owner in respect of the premises bearing No.15, ground floor, Municipal No.48, 46, 47 situated at Diwan Khan Lane, Chickpet Cross, Bengaluru, by virtue of decree of partition dated

30.03.2009. After he became the owner of the property, there was an automatic attornment of tenancy and tenants are occupying the petition premises on a monthly rent of Rs.2000/- (in HRP No.87/2016) and Rs.2,415/- (in HRP No.91/2016)

5. Landlord has filed the Eviction Petition for vacating the respondents from the petition premises under the provisions of 27(2) (q) and (r) of the Karnataka Rent Act.

6. The demand of the landlord was not heeded to by the tenants and therefore Eviction Petition came to be filed. Eviction Petition was resisted by the tenants not only - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:38774 HRRP No. 24 of 2018 C/W HRRP No. 5 of 2018 on merits, but also on the question of jural relationship by filing necessary application under Section 43 of the Karnataka Rent Act 1999.

7. Learned Trial Judge after recording the evidence of the parties noted that the tenants was not able to rebut the presumption available to the Landlord and taking note of the fact that there was no bona fide in the plea taken by tenants, allowed the eviction petition in HRP No.91/2016 under Section 27(2)(o) and (r) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999. Insofar as the eviction petition in respect of HRP No.87/2016 is concerned, learned Trial Judge allowed the petition under Section 27(2)(r) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999.

8. The prayer of the landlord to evict Sri. Rajendra Kumar Jain in HRP No.87/2016 under Section 27(2)(q) was rejected. Landlord did not chose to file any revision for rejection of the eviction petition under Section 27(2)(q) of the Karnataka Rent Act insofar as HRP No.87/2016 is - 6 - NC: 2024:KHC:38774 HRRP No. 24 of 2018 C/W HRRP No. 5 of 2018 concerned. So also, landlord did not chose to file any revision any revision in respect of rejection of eviction petition in HRP No.91/2016.

9. Being aggrieved by the Order of eviction passed by the learned Trial Judge, both the tenants have preferred the present revision petitions.

10. Learned counsel Sri. H.J. Sanghvi for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition contending that the learned Trial Judge failed to note that the tenant M/s. Kavitha Cycle Mart has raised the issue of jural relationship bonafidely and mere rejection thereof should not automatically result in order of eviction under Section 27(2)(o) of the Karnataka Rent Act and so also ground of eviction order under Section 27(2)(r) is incorrect.

11. He further contended that in respect of the tenant Sri. Rajendra Kumar Jain is concerned, the learned - 7 - NC: 2024:KHC:38774 HRRP No. 24 of 2018 C/W HRRP No. 5 of 2018 Trial Judge did not take into consideration the conduct of the landlord that he is the only interested in selling the property to a third party and absolutely there was no bona fide in request of the landlord in getting the tenants evicted from the premises on the ground of bona fide use and occupation resulting in miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the revision.

12. Per contra, learned counsel Smt. Latha G. representing the landlord support the impugned order.

13. Having heard the parties in detail, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. On such perusal of the material on record, admittedly the landlord has become the owner of the property in a final decree proceedings. The petition property has fallen to the share of the petition. When once the petitioner has become the owner of the property, there would be an automatic attornment of tenancy. Therefore, the grounds urged on behalf of the tenant M/s. Kavitha Cycle Mart in questioning - 8 - NC: 2024:KHC:38774 HRRP No. 24 of 2018 C/W HRRP No. 5 of 2018 the jural relationship of landlord and tenant at any rate cannot be termed as a bona fide dispute.

14. Therefore, eviction order under Section 27(2)(o) of the Karnataka Rent Act in respect of M/s. Kavitha Cycle Mart which is the subject matter of HRP No.91/2016 is need to be maintained.

15. She further contended that the language employed in Section 27(2)(o) of the Karnataka Rent Act would go to show that when there is no bona fide intention in questioning the landlord and tenant relationship, the Trial Court is entitled to pass an Order under Section 27(2)(r) of the Karnataka Rent Act. Therefore, the eviction of the tenants from the petition premises need to be maintained.

16. This Court considered the rival contentions and perused the material on record meticulously. Insofar as the bona fide use of the landlord is concerned, which is - 9 - NC: 2024:KHC:38774 HRRP No. 24 of 2018 C/W HRRP No. 5 of 2018 also accepted by the learned Trial Judge in both the petitions, there is a clear departure in the provisions of law visavis., Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 and Karnataka Rent Act 1999, insofar as the ground of bona fide use and occupation by the landlord. In earlier enactment, i.e., Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1969, the burden of establishing that the petition premises is required by the landlord for his bonafide use was on landlord.

17. Having regard to the presumption carved out in the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, all that the landlord is required to discharge the initial burden is by stepping into the witness box and swear on the oath that the petition premises is required for his bona fide use and occupation.

18. No doubt such a presumption is not an absolute presumption, but it is rebuttable presumption. In order to rebut the said presumption, it is the tenant who is required to place cogent evidence on record in establishing that the alleged bona fide need of the landlord is incorrect. - 10 - NC: 2024:KHC:38774 HRRP No. 24 of 2018 C/W HRRP No. 5 of 2018

19. On perusal of the material evidence on record placed by the tenants in the case on hand, except stating before the Court that the petition premises is not required for the landlord for bona fide use and occupation and making a stray allegation that the landlord is interested in disposing of the property to a third party after evicting the tenants, no other material evidence is forthcoming on record so as to rebut the presumption available to the landlord under the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999.

20. Therefore, the learned Trial Judge was justified in passing the order of eviction against the tenants in both the eviction petitions under Section 27(2)(r) is concerned. Therefore, the eviction orders are to be upheld.

21. Having said thus, it is noticed that both the tenants are carrying on the business in the petition premises. Therefore, a reasonable time is required to be allowed for the tenants to vacate the premises subject to filing the undertaking that they would clear all the arrears - 11 - NC: 2024:KHC:38774 HRRP No. 24 of 2018 C/W HRRP No. 5 of 2018 of rent and they would continue to pay the monthly rent as and when it accrues and file an affidavit that the tenants would vacate and handover the premises within the stipulated time without driving the landlord to execution proceedings.

22. Accordingly, the following : ORDER (i) Revision Petitions are meritless. Accordingly dismissed. (ii) However, time granted by the learned Trial Judge to vacate and handover the premises is extended to 31st of March 2026 subject to filing an undertaking that the revision petitioners/ tenants would pay the arrears of rent, if any, on or before 30th September 2024 and continue to pay the rents as and when it accrues and also filing an undertaking to vacate and handover the petition premises to the landlord on or - 12 - NC: 2024:KHC:38774 HRRP No. 24 of 2018 C/W HRRP No. 5 of 2018 before 31st of March 2026 without driving the landlord to the execution petitions. (iii) The undertaking affidavits to be filed on or before 30th September 2024. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE SNC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11 CT: BHK