LexK. PUTTARAJU versus A. HANUMEGOWDA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(2008] 13 S.C.R. 477 K. PUTIARAJU A v. A. HANUMEGOWDA (Civil Appeal No. 5648 of 2008) ..../ SPETEMBER 15, 2008 B [TARUN CHATTERJEE AND AFTAB ALAM, JJ.) Kamataka Rent Act, 1999 - s. 27(2)(r) rlw s. 27(2)(j) and s. 31 - Eviction petition initially uls 27(2)(r) rlw s. 27(2)(j) - · During pendency of the petition amendment seeking eviction c also on the ground u/s. 31 - Small Causes Court granting eviction only uls 27(2)(r) - High Court granting eviction uls 31 in addition - On appeal, held: Landlord is entitled to eviction on the ground uls. 31 alone, without going to provision uls ....... 27(2)(r) - ss. 31 and 27(2)(r) are independent of each other D and can be set in motion in the individual fields - Even if the application u/s. 31 was belated, the ingredients required for · getting eviction under the provision were present except the requirement in Explanation 2 thereof - However, the tenant failed to prove that the landlord had taken advantage of the E provision on earlier occasion - Rent control and Eviction. Respondent-landlord filed an eviction petition u/s 27(2)(r) rlw s. 27(2)(j) of Karnataka Rent Act,'1999 in re- spect of a portion of shop on the ground of bonafide re- ; quirement. After the recording of evidence was over, he F filed an application seeking eviction also on the ground uls. 31 of the Act. Small Causes Court directed eviction only on the ground of bonafide requirement i.e. uls 27(2)(r). Appellant-tenant challenged the same in revision, on the ground that the landlord was having alternative reason- G able and suitable accommodation for his requirement. High Court affirmed the order of the Sma((_ Causes Court and directed eviction also on the ground uls. 31. Hence the present appeal. 477 H 478 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 13 S.C.R. A Disposing of the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 In view of provisions under Section 31 of Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, the order of the High Court as well as the Small Causes Court, cannc" be interfered with. B Section 31 gives a special right to somt: particular classes \_ of landlords. Therefore, Section 31, which imposes cer- tain conditions on the landlord to get order of eviction of his tenant, is satisfied and the landlord is entitled to get an order of eviction without going to the provisions of c Section 27(2)(r) of the Act. [Para 8J [484-8, C & DJ 1.2 Section 27(2)(r) is a general provision for evic- tion of a tenant given to the landlord to evict his tenant. Whereas Section 31 of the Act has been introduced by the legislature .to reflect the policy oft.he legislature for D rendering speedy justice to the landlords belonging to three categories of citizens, namely, a widow, a handi- capped person and a person who is a citizen of above 65 years. Therefore, the aforesaid two provisions are quite independent of each other and they can be set in motion E in the individual fields. [Para 8J [484-E,F,G; 485-A] 2.1 It is true that the respondent filed the application for amendment of the eviction petition when the evidence was over, but there is no jurisdictional error of the Small Causes Court, whose order was affirmed by the High F Court in revision and hence this Court is not inclined to interfere with the orders of the Courts below in the exer- cise of the discretionary power under Article 136 of the Constitution allowing the amendment of the eviction pe- tition under Section 31 of the Act. [Para 8J [485-8 & CJ G 2.2 Although, the application u/s. 31 was filed belat- edly but it is an admitted position that the ingredients re- quired for getting an order of eviction u/s.31 were very much present except the requirement in Explanation No. 2 u/s. 31, requiring the respondent to plead that they have H not availed the opportunity of getting the order of evic- K. PUTIARAJU v. A. HANUMEGOWDA 479 tion u/s. 31 earlier. Admittedly, the respondent was a se- A nior citizen at the time of filing of the eviction petition. In order to bring the eviction petition within the purview of · Section 31, the respondent pleaded even at the belated stage that he had sought for eviction of the tenant on the ground made u/s. 31. An additional objection was filed by B the appellant to this application for amendment. It was not pleaded by the appellant in their written objection nor has it been brought to the notice of this Court that the respondent had taken this opportunity once before and, therefore, he would n
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.