Case Note & Summary
The case involves a landlord, Shri Chandranath Padesoor, who filed a revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging an order dated 29/11/2008 passed by the I-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad, sitting at Hubli. The learned District Judge had allowed a rent revision petition filed by the tenants, Smt. Basavva Shellikeri and others, and directed the landlord to hand over possession of the schedule property to the tenants. The landlord had originally filed a suit for eviction against the tenants, and after obtaining possession on the ground of demolition and reconstruction, he failed to complete the reconstruction within a reasonable time. The tenants then filed a petition under Section 36(3) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, seeking restoration of possession. The trial court dismissed the tenants' petition, but the Additional District Judge allowed it, holding that the landlord had not proved his bona fide requirement for demolition and reconstruction. The High Court, in revision, examined whether the landlord had made out a case for interference with the concurrent findings of fact. The court noted that the landlord had not produced any evidence of having obtained sanctioned plans or having the financial capacity to reconstruct. The court held that the findings of the courts below were based on evidence and were not perverse. The High Court dismissed the revision petition, upholding the order of the Additional District Judge directing restoration of possession to the tenants. The court emphasized that the tenant's right to restoration under Section 36(3) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, is a substantive right and cannot be defeated by the landlord's failure to prove bona fide requirement.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Restoration of Possession - Section 36(3) Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 - Tenant's Right to Restoration - The tenant sought restoration of possession after the landlord obtained possession for demolition and reconstruction but failed to complete reconstruction within a reasonable time. The court held that the tenant is entitled to restoration of possession under Section 36(3) of the Act, and the landlord's failure to prove bona fide requirement for demolition and reconstruction disentitles him from retaining possession. (Paras 1-5) B) Civil Procedure - Revision - Section 115 CPC - Scope of Interference - The High Court in revision under Section 115 CPC cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless there is a jurisdictional error or perversity. The landlord failed to demonstrate any such error, and the findings of the courts below were based on evidence. (Paras 4-5) C) Rent Control - Bona Fide Requirement - Demolition and Reconstruction - Burden of Proof - The landlord must prove that the requirement for demolition and reconstruction is bona fide and that he has the means and intention to carry out the reconstruction. In this case, the landlord did not produce any evidence of having obtained sanctioned plans or having financial capacity, and thus failed to discharge the burden. (Paras 2-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the landlord's revision petition under Section 115 CPC against the order of the Additional District Judge allowing the tenant's revision under Section 36(3) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, is maintainable and whether the landlord has made out a case for interference with the concurrent findings of fact.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the revision petition, upholding the order of the Additional District Judge directing the landlord to hand over possession of the schedule property to the tenants.
Law Points
- Restoration of possession to tenant after reconstruction
- Bona fide requirement for demolition and reconstruction
- Section 36(3) Karnataka Rent Act 1999
- Scope of revision under Section 115 CPC
- Concurrent findings of fact not to be interfered with in revision
