Case Note & Summary
The case involves a revision petition filed by the tenants (petitioners) against an eviction order passed by the Chief Judge, Small Causes Court, Bangalore, in HRC No. 87/2013. The respondents (landlords) had filed the eviction petition under Section 27(2)(d)(i) and (ii) and Section 31(1)(a) and (c) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, seeking eviction of the tenants from a residential premises bearing No. 23, PID No. 49-54-23 (old No. E-10), First Floor, Shankar Mutt Main Road, Shankarapuram, Bangalore-560004. The landlords claimed that the premises were required bona fide for the use and occupation of the son of the first landlord, who was married and needed separate accommodation. The tenants contested the eviction, denying the bona fide requirement and claiming that greater hardship would be caused to them if evicted. The Trial Court, after considering the evidence, allowed the eviction petition, directing the tenants to quit and deliver vacant possession. Aggrieved, the tenants filed the present revision under Section 46(1) of the Act. The High Court, in its judgment dated 20th January 2015, dismissed the revision petition, holding that the Trial Court's findings on bona fide requirement and comparative hardship were findings of fact based on evidence and not perverse. The Court reiterated that the scope of revision under Section 46(1) is limited to examining the legality and regularity of the proceedings and does not permit re-appreciation of evidence. The Court found no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order and upheld the eviction.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Bona Fide Requirement - Section 27(2)(d)(i) and (ii) of Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 - Landlord sought eviction of tenant from residential premises for use and occupation by his son and his family - Trial Court allowed eviction finding landlord's requirement genuine and bona fide - Revision filed by tenant - Held that the High Court in revision under Section 46(1) cannot re-appreciate evidence unless findings are perverse or illegal - Concurrent findings of fact not interfered with (Paras 1-10). B) Rent Control - Comparative Hardship - Section 27(2)(d)(ii) of Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 - Tenant claimed greater hardship if evicted as he had no alternative accommodation - Landlord contended he had no other suitable accommodation for his son - Trial Court held that greater hardship would be caused to landlord if eviction is refused - Revision upheld this finding - Held that the question of comparative hardship is a finding of fact and not open to interference in revision (Paras 11-15). C) Rent Control - Revision - Section 46(1) of Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 - Scope of revision is limited to examining legality and regularity of proceedings - High Court cannot act as an appellate court and re-appreciate evidence - Held that the revision petition was devoid of merits and dismissed (Paras 16-20).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Trial Court's order of eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement of the landlord under Section 27(2)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, is sustainable in law and on facts, and whether the revision petition under Section 46(1) of the Act warrants interference.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the revision petition (HRRP No.105/2014) and upheld the eviction order dated 01.08.2014 passed by the Chief Judge, Small Causes Court, Bangalore, in HRC No.87/2013. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Bona fide requirement of landlord
- comparative hardship
- eviction under Karnataka Rent Act
- 1999
- Section 27(2)(d)(i) and (ii)
- Section 46(1)
- revision jurisdiction limited to legality and regularity
- no interference with concurrent findings of fact unless perverse.
