Case Note & Summary
The case involves three revision petitions filed by tenants (Vinod G., Dr. Narayuan Waddinnavar, and Meena Pawar) against a common order dated 04.02.2015 passed by the Fast Track Court-III, Belagavi, in HRC Revision Petitions No.19/2014, 17/2014, and 18/2014, which confirmed the eviction orders dated 26.09.2014 passed by the Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & JMFC, Belagavi, in HRC Nos.31/2012, 29/2012, and 30/2012. The respondent-landlord, Jijabai w/o Shrikant Jadhav, had filed eviction petitions under Section 21(1)(h) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, seeking eviction of the tenants from the premises bearing R.S.No.79/1B, Adarsh Nagar, Belagavi, on the ground that she bona fide required the premises for demolition and reconstruction. The trial court allowed the eviction petitions, and the appellate court confirmed the same. The tenants challenged these orders by filing revision petitions under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The High Court, after hearing the parties, held that the courts below had concurrently found that the landlord's requirement was bona fide and that the tenants had not proved that the hardship caused to them would outweigh the advantage to the landlord. The High Court noted that the findings of fact recorded by the courts below were based on evidence and were not perverse, and therefore, no interference was warranted in revision. The revision petitions were dismissed, and the eviction orders were upheld.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Eviction - Bona Fide Requirement - Section 21(1)(h) Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 - Landlord sought eviction for demolition and reconstruction of the premises - Courts below found landlord's requirement bona fide and that tenants failed to prove greater hardship - High Court in revision held that findings of fact based on evidence cannot be interfered with unless perverse - Revision petitions dismissed (Paras 1-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the courts below were justified in ordering eviction of the tenants on the ground of bona fide requirement of the landlord for demolition and reconstruction under Section 21(1)(h) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, and whether the tenants have made out a case of greater hardship.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed all three revision petitions, upholding the eviction orders passed by the courts below.
Law Points
- Bona fide requirement of landlord
- Comparative hardship
- Eviction under Karnataka Rent Act
- 1999 Section 21(1)(h)
- Demolition and reconstruction
- Revision under Section 115 CPC
Case Details
2015 LawText (KAR) (07) 28
HRRP No.100005/2015, HRRP No.100006/2015, HRRP No.100007/2015
Mrutyunjay Tata Bangi (for petitioners), M G Naganuri (for respondent)
Vinod G., Dr. Narayuan Basavaraj Waddinnavar, Meena W/o Rajendra Pawar
Jijabai W/o Shrikant Jadhav
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil revision petitions against concurrent eviction orders under rent control laws.
Remedy Sought
The tenants (petitioners) sought to set aside the eviction orders passed by the courts below and to dismiss the eviction petitions.
Filing Reason
The landlord filed eviction petitions under Section 21(1)(h) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, claiming bona fide requirement for demolition and reconstruction of the premises.
Previous Decisions
The trial court (Principal Civil Judge & JMFC, Belagavi) allowed eviction in HRC Nos.31/2012, 29/2012, and 30/2012 on 26.09.2014. The appellate court (Fast Track Court-III, Belagavi) confirmed the eviction in HRC Revision Petitions No.19/2014, 17/2014, and 18/2014 on 04.02.2015.
Issues
Whether the landlord's requirement for demolition and reconstruction is bona fide under Section 21(1)(h) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999?
Whether the tenants have proved that the hardship caused to them outweighs the advantage to the landlord?
Submissions/Arguments
The tenants argued that the landlord's requirement was not bona fide and that the courts below erred in ordering eviction.
The landlord contended that the requirement was genuine and that the tenants failed to prove greater hardship.
Ratio Decidendi
In a revision under Section 115 CPC, the High Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse or based on no evidence. The courts below had correctly appreciated the evidence and found that the landlord's requirement for demolition and reconstruction was bona fide and that the tenants had not proved greater hardship. Therefore, the eviction orders were justified.
Judgment Excerpts
The courts below have concurrently held that the requirement of the landlord is bona fide and the tenants have not proved that the hardship caused to them would outweigh the advantage to the landlord.
The findings of fact recorded by the courts below are based on evidence and are not perverse. Hence, no interference is called for in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of CPC.
Procedural History
The landlord filed eviction petitions (HRC Nos.31/2012, 29/2012, 30/2012) before the Principal Civil Judge & JMFC, Belagavi, which were allowed on 26.09.2014. The tenants appealed to the Fast Track Court-III, Belagavi (HRC Revision Petitions No.19/2014, 17/2014, 18/2014), which confirmed the eviction on 04.02.2015. The tenants then filed the present revision petitions under Section 115 CPC before the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, which were dismissed on 03.07.2015.
Acts & Sections
- Karnataka Rent Act, 1999: 21(1)(h)
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: 115
