(1.) IN this petition filed under Section 50 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 ('the repealed Act' for short) the petitioner -landlord prays for setting aside the order dated 6.11.1998 passed in H.B.C.No. 1493/96 by the XVIIIth Addl. Small Causes Judge, Bangalore, dismissing the eviction petition filed under Section 21(1)(h) of the Act.
(2.) THE facts necessary for the disposal of the revision, briefly stated, are as under: The landlady filed the petition under Section 21(1)(h) of the repealed Act for eviction of the respondent on the ground that the accommodation that was available with her was not sufficient for her requirement. The son of the petitioner examined himself as P.W. 1. The respondent examined herself but did not submit to cross -examination by the petitioner. The Court -below came to the conclusion that the requirement of the petitioner is reasonable but proceeded to dismiss the petition on the ground of lack of bonafides on the part of the petitioner. The conclusion reached by the Court -below on the question of bonafides was accentuated by the fact that the first and third floor portions fell vacant even before filing of the petition and the petitioner failed to occupy them despite her need to have additional accommodation. Thus, though the Court -below concurred with the petitioner on the question on reasonable requirement of the petition premises it, nevertheless, dismissed the eviction petition. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision is filed.
(3.) DURING the pendency of the revision in this Court, the old act has come to be replaced by The Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 ('the Act' for short) which has in its wake brought about substantial changes in the matter of regulation of eviction. The rigour of proof that a landlord has to discharge for getting an order of eviction against a tenant on any of the grounds available to him under Section 27 of the Act has been considerably whittled down in the Act, by incorporation of a legal fiction in Explanation I to Section 27. By Explanation I to Section 27 the Act mandates that the Court shall presume that the premises are so required, without the landlord being required to prove the genuineness of the requirement. The provisions of the New Act, while introducing this legal fiction in favour of the landlord, has imposed the only onus on him of proving that he does not posses a more suitable accommodation for his occupation. Thus, the need of the landlord to prove that the premises is required by him for his own bonafide use and occupation has been totally done away with by explanation I Section 27 of the Act by introduction of this legal fiction. I would be making a reference to Section 27(2)(r) of the Act in the course of this order. I would be required to examine the relative merits of this revision petition only with reference to the provisions contained in the Act as the Old Act has been repealed in its entirety. Chapter -VI of the Act lays down the several grounds under which the landlord can recover possession of the premises. Section 27(2)(r) covers the ground of occupation for self or for any member of his family. The relevant provision reads: "27. Protection of tenants against eviction - (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract, no order or decree for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made by the Court, District Judge or High Court in favour of the landlord against a tenant, save as provided in Sub -section (2). (2) The Court may, on an application made to it in the prescribed manner, make an order for the recovery of possession of the premises on one or more of the following grounds only, namely - ............ ............ (r) that the premises let are required, whether in the same form or after re -construction or re -building, by the landlord for occupation for himself or any member of his family if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable accommodation. Provided that where the landlord has acquired the premises by transfer, no application for the recovery of possession of such premises shall lie under this clause unless a period of one year has elapsed from the date of the acquisition. Explanation I - For the purposes of this clause and Sections 28 to 31 - (i) where the landlord in his application supported by an affidavit submits that the premises are required by him for occupation for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, the Court shall presume that the premises are so required; (Underlining is mine) (ii) premises let for a particular use may be required by the landlord for a different use if such use is permissible under law. Explanation II - For the purposes of this clause and Section 28 to 31 an occupation by the landlord of any part of a building of which any premises let out by him forms a part shall not disentitle him to recover possession of such premises."