K.N. Anantharaja Gupta vs Smt. D.V. Usha Vijaykumar

2. An eviction petition being HRC No. 233 of 2002 was filed before the Chief Judge, Small Causes Court, Bangalore for eviction of the appellant from the residential premises bearing No. 100, Surveyor Street, Bangalore-4 (in short "the suit premises") under Section 27(2)(r) read with Section 31 of the Karnataka Rent Act (in short "the Act") on the ground that since the suit premises is old and in a dilapidated condition, the same was required to be demolished in order to put up a new construction and that the respondent required the suit premises for use and occupation by herself and her children after demolition and reconstruction of the same as she and her children were staying in her father in law's house. It was also the case of the respondent that the appellant had been residing in the suit premises for more than 20 years and therefore, he should find his own suitable accommodation and accordingly, he was liable to be evicted.

3. A written statement was filed by the appellant in which the allegations made in the eviction petition were denied and it was stated that the respondent was not entitled to evict the appellant as she did not require the suit premises for her bona fide use and occupation. It was further alleged in the written statement that since the respondent was not the sole owner of the suit premises, the eviction petition filed at her instance only was not maintainable and therefore, the same was liable to be dismissed. It was also alleged that the condition of the suit premises was not so dilapidated for which demolition and reconstruction was necessary. The Chief Judge of the Small Causes Court, Bangalore by his order dated 1st of April, 2004 dismissed the eviction petition of the respondent. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Chief Judge of the Small Causes Court at Bangalore, the respondent filed a revision petition before the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore being H.R.R.P No. 366 of 2004. The High Court by it's order dated 19th of October, 2006, had set aside the order of the Chief Judge of the Small Causes Court thereby allowing the revision petition and directing eviction of the appellant from the suit premises but granted six months time to vacate and handover the possession of the same to the respondent. It is this order of the High Court, which is now under challenge in this court by way of a special leave petition in respect of which leave has already been granted.

7. For the reasons aforesaid, we are unable to sustain the order of the High Court and accordingly, the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the High Court for a decision in the light of the findings made hereinabove. While deciding the revision petition, it will be open to the High Court either to permit the parties to lead evidence in the High Court or to frame the questions and direct the Chief Judge, Small Causes Court, Bangalore to take evidence and to make a finding on the same, which may then be transmitted to the High Court and thereafter, the High Court will decide the revision petition in the light of the findings, the evidence adduced and the evidence already on record within a period of six months from the date of supply of a copy of this order to it without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.

8. For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal is thus allowed to the extent indicated above. There will be no order as to costs.