S. Krishnaji Rao - Respondents
Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, Section 21(1)(h) - bonafide Requirement - Landlord a bachelor took voluntary retirement on account of his illness - He had nobody to take care of him - He filed suit for eviction on the ground that demised premises is required to provide residence to his brothers and their families so that he can take their assistance and help - Held, it a bonafide requirement - Eviction granted. [Paras 2 to 4]ORDER
1. The respondent is the landlord of premises in dispute which is a one room tenement. He owns four such tenements one of which is occupied by him and the other three by the tenants. On the ground that he needs the tenements for his bonafide requirements he initiated eviction proceedings against the tenants including the appellant herein in the Court of XVII Additional Judge, Small Causes under clause (h) of Section 21(1) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, (for short 'the Act'). The trial court ordered eviction of tenants in two cases; in the third case it found the plea of comparative hardship in favour of the tenant and dismissed the eviction petition. Those two tenants against whom eviction was ordered, went in revision before the High Court assailing the order of the trial court. During the pendency of the revisions one of the tenants withdrew the revision petition. Consequently, the appellant alone remained in the fray. The High Court dismissed his revision, confirming the order of his eviction on November 11, 1994. He challenged that order of the High Court dismissing the revision in this appeal. 2. Mr. Kaushik, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, submits that the respondent's requirement was to accommodate his brothers and their families in the demised premises and therefore it could not be said to be his bonafide requirement so as to justify the order of eviction against the appellant. A perusal of the order under challenge discloses that both the trial court and the High Court were satisfied with the personal requirement of the respondent. It was found that the respondent had taken voluntary retirement on account of his illness and as he was a bachelor with nobody to take care of him the presence of his brother and their family was necessary and therefore the requirement was not to accommodate his brothers but to take their assistance and help on account of ill health by providing residence to them in his tenements which requirement of the respondent is certainly bonafide. In view of the concurrent findings of the trial court and the High court we do not find any reason to interfere in the order under challenge. 3. However, Mr. Kaushik contends that as one of the tenants has withdrawn his revision petition, it must be treated as if the need of the landlord is satisfied. This point was available to the appellant before the High Court but it was nor urged. We are, therefore, not inclined to allow him to raise this point in this appeal. 4. On the request made by Mr. Kaushik to grant some time to the appellant to vacate the premises in dispute we consider it just and appropriate to grant him time to vacate the premises till October 30, 2001 subject to his furnishing a usual undertaking within four weeks from today. 5. We find no merit in this appeal and we dismiss the same subject to granting of time as aforementioned. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. .