CHAMPA LAL Vs. SHAIK NAJMUDDIN ALIAS GULSHEER PASHA
LAWS(SC)-2002-5-37
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: KARNATAKA)
Decided on
May 01,2002
CHAMPA LAL
Appellant
VERSUS
SHAIK NAJMUDDIN ALIAS GULSHEER PASHA
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
BHOOLCHAND VS. KAY PEE CEE INVESTMENTS [REFERRED]N PRABHAKAR RAO VS. J R RAMESH KUMAR alias RAMESHJI [REFERRED]
Cited Judgements :-
MOHAMMED ABDUL RAHMAN VS. B MANORAMA [LAWS(APH)-2008-4-43] [REFERRED TO]MODILAL VS. CHATRA RAM [LAWS(RAJ)-2003-1-3] [REFERRED TO]
SUNITA RANI VS. RAMESH CHANDER [LAWS(P&H)-2008-2-72] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)Leave granted.
(2.)Champa Lal, the appellant herein, is the tenant in occupation of the shop which is a part of the premises bearing No. 16 South Street (Dowlath Khan Garden), Yellagundapalyam, Bangalore. Respondent No. 1 Shaik Najmuddin alias Gulsheer Pasha and his wife Azeezunnissa are the owners of the suit premises. In this appeal the appellant assails the order passed by the High Court of Karnataka in HRRP No. 1346/96 in which the High Court in exercise of its revisional power set aside the order passed by the Court of Small Causes, Bangalore in HRC No. 10792 of 1987 and ordered eviction of the tenant from the premises in question.
2-A. The proceeding before the Small Causes Court was initiated on the petition filed by the landlord under section 21(1)(h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') on the ground of reasonable and bona fide requirement for personal occupation. The bona fide requirement pleaded by the landlord was that the respondent No. 1 intended to open a grocery shop in the shop room which is in occupation of the appellant. It may be noted here that the appellant, who is a pawn broker, used the room for purpose of his business. The appellant denied the assertion made by the landlord that there was reasonable and bona fide requirement of the premises for opening a grocery shop. He alleged that the respondent No. 1 whose personal requirement was pleaded in the eviction petition had left for Saudi Arabia and further that he (Respondent No. 1) had obtained vacant possession of another shop room in the same building which was vacated by a tenant named Ramaiya which could be used for opening a grocery shop but the said respondent had taken no step for putting the vacant room to such use.
(3.)The Small Causes Court on consideration of the matter rejected the case of reasonable and bona fide requirement of the shop room by the landlords and dismissed the petition for eviction. The landlords filed the revision petition No. HRRP 1346 of 1999 under section 50 of the Act challenging the said order. The High Court by its order dated 19-3-2001 allowed the revision petition and ordered eviction of the tenant. The said order is under challenge in the present appeal.
(2.)Champa Lal, the appellant herein, is the tenant in occupation of the shop which is a part of the premises bearing No. 16 South Street (Dowlath Khan Garden), Yellagundapalyam, Bangalore. Respondent No. 1 Shaik Najmuddin alias Gulsheer Pasha and his wife Azeezunnissa are the owners of the suit premises. In this appeal the appellant assails the order passed by the High Court of Karnataka in HRRP No. 1346/96 in which the High Court in exercise of its revisional power set aside the order passed by the Court of Small Causes, Bangalore in HRC No. 10792 of 1987 and ordered eviction of the tenant from the premises in question.
2-A. The proceeding before the Small Causes Court was initiated on the petition filed by the landlord under section 21(1)(h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') on the ground of reasonable and bona fide requirement for personal occupation. The bona fide requirement pleaded by the landlord was that the respondent No. 1 intended to open a grocery shop in the shop room which is in occupation of the appellant. It may be noted here that the appellant, who is a pawn broker, used the room for purpose of his business. The appellant denied the assertion made by the landlord that there was reasonable and bona fide requirement of the premises for opening a grocery shop. He alleged that the respondent No. 1 whose personal requirement was pleaded in the eviction petition had left for Saudi Arabia and further that he (Respondent No. 1) had obtained vacant possession of another shop room in the same building which was vacated by a tenant named Ramaiya which could be used for opening a grocery shop but the said respondent had taken no step for putting the vacant room to such use.
(3.)The Small Causes Court on consideration of the matter rejected the case of reasonable and bona fide requirement of the shop room by the landlords and dismissed the petition for eviction. The landlords filed the revision petition No. HRRP 1346 of 1999 under section 50 of the Act challenging the said order. The High Court by its order dated 19-3-2001 allowed the revision petition and ordered eviction of the tenant. The said order is under challenge in the present appeal.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.