- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties
(2.) LEAVE granted. Ist Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)(Rent Controller) relied on the provision contained in Explanation (i) appearing below S.27(2)(r) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 (for short 'the Act') and granted the respondents prayer for eviction on the ground of bona fide necessity. That order has been confirmed in revision by the learned Additional District Judge. When the High Court was moved against the said order, it refused to interfere with the same. Hence, this appeal by special leave.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant argued that the impugned orders are liable to be set aside because the Rent Controller and Additional District Judge gravely erred by relying on Explanation (i) appearing below S.27(2)(r), ignoring the fact that the eviction petition filed by the respondents was not supported by an affidavit. He further argued that High Court also committed serious error by upholding the order of eviction on the ground that the verification of the eviction petition was certified by the Administrative Officer of the Trial Court. Learned counsel emphasized that presumption envisaged in Explanation (i) appearing below S.27(2)(r) of the Act, is required to be raised, only if the petition for eviction is supported by an affidavit and not otherwise and in the present case no such affidavit had been filed.;