LexK.N. ANANTHARAJA GUPTA versus SMT. D.V. USHA VIJAY KUMAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1 K.N. ANANTHARAJA GUPTA A v. SMT. D.V. USHA VIJA YKUMAR NOVEMBER 30, 2007 (TAR UN CHATTERJEE AND P. SATHASIV AM, JJ.] B Rent Control and Eviction: Karnataka Rent Act, 1999-s.27(2)(r) rlw s.31-Eviction C Petition-On the ground of bonafide requirement of premises on reconstruction after demolition-Trial court denied, while High Court directing eviction-On appeal, held: Eviction not justified-Eviction was granted without a finding that landlady was not in possession of reasonably suitable. accommodation and that the premises needed demolition-Matter remitted to High Court for reconsideration. D Respondent-landlady, a widow filed an eviction petition u/s 27(2)(r) r/w Section 31 of Karnataka Rent Act for eviction of the appellant-tenant from the suit premises (residential premises), on the ground that the premises was old and in a dilapidated condition, E which required to be demolished in order to put up new construction; and that the landlady required the premises for use and occupation by herself and her children. She was living in the house of her Cather- in-law. Small Causes Court dismissed the petition on the ground that , -1 the landlady failed to prove that she bad bonafide need of the F premises after demolition and reconstruction and that she had no other reasonably suitable accommodation. Revision petition against the order was allowed by the High Court directing eviction of the appellant. Hence the present appeal. -- Partly allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to the High G Court, the Court HELD: 1. High Court was not justified in reversing the judgment of the Small Causes Court without being satisfied as to 749 H 750 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 12 S.C.R. A whether the respondent had fulfilled the conditions required for eviction of the appellant as laid down under Section 27(2)(r) of the Karnataka Rent Act. [Para 4) [752-H; 753-A) B 2. No order or decree for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made by the court against the tenant, save as provided in Section 27(2). A plain reading of Section 27(2)(r) would clearly show that a decree for eviction or an order for recovery of possession can be passed by a court if the premises let is required, whether in the same form or after reconstruction or rebuilding by the landlord for occupation for himself or for any member of his C family if: (i)heis the owner of the said premises and (ii) the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable accommodation. [Para4) [753-E,F,G) 3. In the present case, the respondent is, admittedly, a co-owner D of the suit premises. It is well settled that a co-owner is entitled to evict a tenant on the ground of bona fide requirement. From the record, it does not appear that there has been any threat of eviction of the respondent and her children by her father-in-law from the house in which they are presently residing. This aspect of the matter, E was not taken into consideration by the High Court. Before passing any order of eviction, it was the duty of the High Court to come to a finding that the respondent was not in possession of a reasonably suitable accommodation, which is the mandatory requirement under Section 27(2)(r) of the Act. [Para 4] [754-G; 755-B, CJ F 4. In order to satisfy the condition u/s 27(2)(r), it is essential that the court should also find that the premises let needs to be demolished and that the same would be reconstructed after demolition. It is only after this that the question of user of the same after reconstruction would be taken into consideration. From the G order of the High Court it would be evident that the only ground on which the order of Small Causes Co.urt, was reversed was that the respondent needed the suit premises to demolish the same and to take up new construction and obtain plans from the authority. Before granting a decree for eviction on the ground of demolition and H reconstruction and then for use of the same for occupation, the court ·~ K.N.ANANTHARAJAGUPTAv. D.V. USHA 751 ~ "-i VIJA YKUMAR [TARUN CHATTERJEE,J.] must be satisfied that: - (i) the suit premises is so dilapidated that it A 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. [Para 5] (755-D, E, F, G; 756-A] 5. The High Court proceeded only on the ground that the B respondent required
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.