HABIB Vs. JAYAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision by the tenant is directed against the order dated 10-6-2003 passed by the XV Additional Small Causes Judge, Mayo Hall unit, Bangalore in H. R. C No. 10420 of 1996. The Court below allowed the petition filed by the landlord under Section 27 (2) (r) of the Karnataka rent Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the "rent Act, 1999", for short)corresponding to Section 21 (1) (h) of the repealed Karnataka Rent Control act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "old Act", for short) and ordered eviction of the tenant-petitioner herein from the petition premises.

(2.) THE landlords-respondents herein filed eviction petition under section 21 (1) (h) of the "old Act" before the Court below praying for eviction of the tenant-petitioner herein from the petition schedule premises viz. , Shop No. 1, Cauvery Complex, Municipal No. 17/8/2, 11th main road, Gokula I Phase, I Stage, Bangalore 54 measuring 9. 6' x 15' on the ground that one of the landlord i. e. , respondent 2 herein, namely, p. Nagaraj needs the premises in question for his bona fide use and personal occupation inasmuch as he wants to engage himself in plumbing contract work and plumbing and sanitary wares retail business. The petition property which forms part of the composite building constructed on the site measuring 70' x 40' is allotted to the landlords in the partition entered into between the family members in the year 1996 which is evidenced by registered partition deed (Ex. P. 1); the petitioner herein is a tenant under the respondents in respect of the aforesaid property on a monthly rent of Rs. 325/ -. It is contended by the landlords that the property was leased even prior to the said partition and the tenancy has been attorned in favour of the present landlords; that the rents are being collected by the 2nd respondent herein on his behalf and also on behalf of other respondents; that the entire composite building consists of shops on the ground floor and in a portion of the first floor facing the road on the eastern side; that there are three shops facing the road on the eastern side, out of which, one shop which measures 9. 6' x 15' (marked as 'a' shop in sketch produced by the landlords) is in the occupation of Mrs. Manjula Kumari, the 5th respondent herein who is carrying on retail business in children garments under the name and style of 'moondrop Fasions'; the petition premises in question (marked as 'b' shop in the sketch) is situated on the south eastern corner of the composite building and measures east to west 15' and north-south 9'. 6"; the 2nd respondent had obtained registration certificate (licence) from BWSSB, for water supply and sanitary contract work and that even prior to obtaining such licence, he was engaged in the work of plumbing and sanitary works; the 2nd respondent is operating the said business from his residence which is not suitable for the said purposes; he is unable to store the sanitary and plumbing fittings in his house, for which, much place is required; as the petition schedule property is a non-residential premises situated in the ground floor facing on the main road, the same is very much suitable for the 2nd respondent to have the aforesaid contract work and business; that the 2nd respondent has got sufficient resources to start said business; that as the said business is now being operated from the residential house, several customers and others connected with the said business are frequently visiting the house of the 2nd respondent, which is causing great inconvenience and hardship to the family atmosphere, particularly, women folk; that all other respondents also endorse the need of the 2nd respondent. It is further averred in the eviction petition that the 2nd respondent is the only earning male member in the family; that the 6th respondent herein who is yet to be married also resides with the 2nd respondent; he has to augment his income to celebrate the marriage of the 6th respondent; that the tenant is carrying on business in retail sales and service of wrist watches and clocks and conducting lucky draws; he has sufficient resources and income to secure alternative accommodation in the same locality; and that the alternative accommodations are available for the tenant in the locality so that he can switch over to the alternative accommodation in the same area. On these amongst other grounds, the landlords-respondents herein pleaded for eviction of the tenant-petitioner herein.

(3.) ON the other hand, the tenant opposed the eviction 3petition by denying the material contentions of the landlords. It is contended that different tenants are occupying different tenements of the composite building; that one tenant who is carrying on the business under the name and style of 'globe Instruments' is in occupation of three shops, m/s. Shariff Enterprises has occupied one shop in the composite building about seven months back and if really the 2nd respondent is in need of premises in question, he would not have inducted the different tenants of the composite property to occupy the shops; that as the landlords do not have bona fide need, they have let out different shops to the different tenants and that the 2nd respondent herein is not BWSSB, sanitary contractor. He further contended that the two shops viz. , one shop in the first floor and another shop situated at the inner portion of the building are vacant; both the shops are ideal and well-suited for the landlords and that greater hardship will be caused to him in case if the eviction order is passed against him.