- (1.) THE decree under appeal, put in issue by three of the tenants in the suit accommodation which appears to be a large property, is one for eviction under clause (j) of sub-section (1) of S. 21 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act", for short). The High Court has held that the premises are reasonably and bona fide required by the landlord for the immediate purpose of demolition and erecting a new building in place thereof. It appears that in the premises owned by the landlord there were 22 tenants out of whom, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent landlord, 15 vacated without any contest and proceedings for eviction were initiated and prosecuted against 7 tenants only. Out of these 7 tenants who suffered the order of eviction, only 5 appealed before the High Court and only 3 have pursued their contest by filing these appeals by special leave before this Court.
(2.) WE have heard at length the learned counsel for the appellant tenants. His principal submission is that the proposed construction is likely to defeat the tenants' right to re-entry under S. 27 of the Act. The cause for grievance is an observation made in the judgment of the High Court that it cannot be said that without regard to the circumstances of the case, the reconstruction of the building should be such as to accommodate every tenant displaced by the order of eviction. The second cause for grievance of the appellant tenants is a factual admission made by the landlord Sarvan Singh in his statement before the trial court wherein he has stated that "it was true that as per plan, Ext. P-1 (of proposed construction), it is not possible to lease portions of the house to my tenants" However, during re-examination, with the leave of the Court, he stated that "after the construction is made as per Ext. P-1, I am going to make suitable constructions for the purpose of leasing portions of the house to my tenants".
(3.) UNDER the scheme of the Act, the right of the tenant to re-entry is qualified by certain conditions to be satisfied after a decree for eviction has been passed by the court under S. 21(1)(j). The tenant may, within six months from the date on which he delivered vacant possession of the premises to the landlord, give notice to the landlord of his intention to occupy the new building on its completion, subject to the conditions satisfied in clauses (a) and (b) of S. 27. Once the tenant has given such a notice, on receipt thereof by the landlord, the landlord shall, under S. 28, in not less than three months before the date on which the erection of new building is likely to be completed, intimate the tenant the date on which the said erection shall be completed. On the said date the tenant shall be entitled to occupy the building. It appears that the legislature thought that all the tenants, if there be more than one, in the erstwhile building, may not exercise their right to reoccupy the new building on its completion and therefore, the right is conferred only on such of the tenants as express their intention to exercise the right by serving a notice on the landlord in the manner contemplated by S. 27 of the Act and be willing to comply with the conditions set out in clauses (a) and (b) of S. 27.;