- (1.) THIS is a tenant's revision petition against eviction order made under Section 27 (2) (a) (g) (b) (r) (o) and Section 31 (1) (b) and (c) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 (for short, 'the Act').
(2.) I have heard Sr.Rameshchandra, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri.Kashyap N.Nayak for first respondent and Sri.Bhuvan K.P., learned counsel for second respondent. I have been taken through evidence and the impugned order. The schedule premises is a shop premises measuring East to West 9 feet and North to South 15 feet. It is the contention of landlord that petitioner (tenant) has been paying rent at the rate of Rs.2,500/- per month. The landlord has contended that petitioner (tenant) was paying a sum of Rs.1,700/- in respect of shop premises and a sum of Rs.800/- in respect of godown. The learned trial judge taking into consideration the rent receipts as per Ex.R1 to R4 has held that petitioner (tenant) was paying rent of Rs.800/- per month. The learned trial judge has disbelieved evidence of respondent/landlord that petitioner/tenant was paying a sum of Rs.800/- by way of cheque and a sum of Rs.1,700/- by way of cash. In the result, the learned trial judge has determined the rate of rent at Rs.800/- per month. In my considered opinion, when respondent has not come up with truth and respondent had failed to establish that petitioner (tenant) was paying rent at the rate of Rs.1,700/- per month, the learned trial judge should not have ordered eviction under Section 27 (2) (a) of the Act. Therefore, finding of the learned trial judge recorded under section 27(2)(g) of the Act is set aside. It is the contention of respondent/landlord that he requires schedule premises for his use and occupation and he does not have alternate suitable accommodation to run his business. The respondent has deposed that his sons are carrying on business in a rented premises and schedule premises is required for use and occupation of his sons.
(3.) THE learned counsel for petitioner relying on the judgment of Supreme Court reported in AIR 2008 SC 539 (in the case of K.N.Anantharaja Gupta ­vs- D.V.Usha Vijaykumar) would submit that, when the respondent/ landlord had sought for eviction on the ground that his sons would carry on business in the schedule premises after the same is altered or reconstructed, the court must be satisfied that: (i) the suit premises is so dilapidated that it needs demolition; (ii) the landlord has the capacity to reconstruct the suit premises after demolition; (iii) THE sanctioned plan has to be taken from the concerned authority. The learned counsel would submit that mere expression or desire would not entitle the respondent/ landlord to get a decree of eviction under Section 27 (2) (r) of the Act. In the case on hand, learned trial Judge has granted an order of eviction under section 27(2)(g) of the Act, amongst other grounds. Section 27(2)(g) of the Act reads thus:- "27(2)(g). that the premises or any part thereof are required by the landlord for carrying out any repairs which cannot be carried out without the premises being vacated;" In a decision reported in AIR 2008 SC 539 (in the case of K.N.Anantharaja Gupta ­vs- D.V.Usha Vijaykumar) the landlord had sought for eviction for use and occupation of premises after demolition and reconstruction of building already in existence. In the case on hand, the financial capacity of landlord to reconstruct the building has not been disputed. The petitioner has admitted that he is a tenant in occupation of schedule premises for more than 25 ­ 30 years. Therefore, the case of landlord that the schedule premises requires alteration and repair cannot be suspected. It is not a case where the landlord has sought for eviction on the ground of demolition or reconstruction for his occupation. Therefore, what has been held in the above decision is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. Even otherwise, from the evidence it is established that the schedule premises is considerably old. The financial capacity of landlord to reconstruct the premises after demolition has not been controverted. ;