K. PUTTARAJUversusA. HANUMEGOWDA

                                     (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
                provision on earlier occasion - Rent control and Eviction.         E

                     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.
  Section 31 gives a special right to somt: particular classes     \_
B 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
  Section 27(2)(r) of the Act. [Para 8J [484-8, C & DJ
c
       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
  rendering speedy justice to the landlords belonging to
D
  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
  in the individual fields. [Para 8J [484-E,F,G; 485-A]
E
        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 not be entitled to come within the             c
purview of Section 31. That being the position, there is
no reason to interfere with the orders of the Courts be-
low allowing the api;lication for amendment of the evic-
tion petition. [Para 9) [485-C,D,E,F & H; 486-A]
     CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDCTION: Civil Appeal No. 5648' D
of 2008
     From the Judgment and Final Order dated 16.1.2007 of
the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in 11.R.R.P. No. 552/
2006
                                                                   E
     Kiran Suri for the Appellant.
     Kashi Vishweshwar and A. Sumathi for the Respondents.
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
     TARUN CHATTERJEE, J 1. Leave granted.                         F

     2. The respondent/landlord herein filed an eviction peti-
tion under Section 27(2}(r) read with Section 27(2)0) of the
Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 (in short, the "Acf') ag9inst the ap-
pellant.for eviction in respect of a portion of shop No. 575, 11th./G
Main, 5th Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore- 41, measuring 12 feet
East to West and 8 W' North to South (hereinafter referred to
as the "said shop"}. The said eviction petition was filed before
the Judge, Court of Small Causes at Bangalore, which came to
be registered as HRC No. 196/2003, inter a/ia on the ground H
   480       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2008] 13 S.C.R.


A that the respondent required the said shop for his own use and
  occupation and for starting a business for his son who was handi-
  capped. So far as the ground under Section 27(2)(r) of the Act
  was concerned, the same was allowed and eviction was di-
  rected, but the ground under Section 27(2)0) of the Act was,
B however, rejected and the appellant was directed to vacate the
  said shop within three months from the date of passing of the
  order of eviction, which was passed on 16th of September, 2006.
  The case of the landlord/respondent was that he filed the evic-
  tion petition against the appellant under Section 27(2)(r) of the
c Act on the ground that he wanted to start a stationary business
  in the said shop with the assistance of his younger son so as to
  enable him to earn his livelihood and the appellant, being a re-
  tired engineer in the Irrigation Department and a senior citizen,
  the eviction petition should be allowed in his favour. The younger
  son, for whom the said shop was required, was/is a handi-
0
  capped person.
        3. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the learned Judge of
  the Small Causes Court, Bangalore, the High Court was moved
  in revision by the appellant. The challenge to the aforesaid or-
E der of the Small Causes Court Judge, directing the eviction was
  that the appellant was and/or is in possession of reasonable,
  suitable accommodation as he is the owner of shopping malls
  and other 10 shops in the area in question.
        4. It may be mentioned that during the pendency of the
F eviction petition, an application for amendment of the same was      ;
  filed at the instance of the landlord/respondent praying for
  amendment of the petition on the ground that the respondent
  also sought to evict the appellant under Section 31 of the Act.
  The High Court, by the impugned order, had affirmed the find-
G ing of the learned Judge of the Small Causes Court at Banga-
  lore and directed eviction of the appellant from the said shop
  also on the ground under Section 31 of the Act. Feeling ag-
  grieved by this order of the High Court affirming the order of
  eviction passed by the Small Causes Court, this Special Leave
H Petition was filed by the appellant in this Court which, on grant
                    K. PUTIARAJU v. A. HANUMEGOWDA                    481
 ;..
                          [TARUN CHATTERJEE, J]
       of leave, was heard in presence of the learned counsel for the A
       parties.
             5. In our view, this appeal can be disposed of on a very
       short point. As noted herein earlier, initially, the original petition
_J     for eviction was filed only under Section 27(2)(r) read with Sec-
       tion 27(2)0) of the Act, out of which the ground under Section B
       27(2)0) of the Act was negatived and eviction was ordered only
       on the ground of bonafide requirement of the said shop under
       Section 27(2)(r) of the Act. against which, the revision was
       moved in the High Court, which also affirmed the order of the
       learned Judge of the Small Causes Court, Bangalore. It is true c
       that during the pendency of the eviction petition before the Small
       Causes Court, the ground under Section 31 of the Act was
       added in the eviction petition which, for our purpose, may be
       reproduced as under :-
                                                                              D
-../         "Right to recover immediate possession of premises to
             accrue to a widow - (1) where the landlord is :- (a) a widow
             and the premises let out by her, or by her husband; (b)
             a handicapped person and the premises let out by him;
             (c) a person who is of the age of sixty-five years or more
             an the presmies let out by him, is required for use by her E
             or him or for her or his family or for any one for ordinarily
             living with her or him for use, she or he may apply to the
             Court for recovery of immediate possession of such

.,           premises. (2) Where the landlord referred to in sub-
             section (1) has let out more than one premises, it shall F
             be open to him to make an application under that sub-
             section in respect of any one residential and one non-
             residential premises each chosen by him.
             Explanation - I - For the purposes of this section,
                                                                   G
             "handicapped person" shall mean a person who is as if
             being an assessee entitled for the time being to the
             benefits of deduction under section BOU of the Income
             Tax Act, 1961 (Central Act 48 of 1961).
             Explanation - II - The right to recover possession under H
    482       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2008] 13 S.C.R.
                                                                         A


A         this section shall be exercisable only once in respect of
          each for residential and for non-residential use."
         6. At this stage, it would be appropriate if we deal with the
    ground under Section 27(2)(r) of the Act as well. Section 27(2)(r)
    reads as under :-                                                    \_
B
          "Eviction on Ground of Landlord's Personal Requirement etc.
          ( r) that the premises let are required, whether in the
          same form or after re-construction or re-building, by the
          landlord for occupation for himself or for any member of
c         his family if he is the owner thereof, or for any reason for
          whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord
          or such person has no other reasonably suitable
          accommodation :
          Provided that where the landlord has required the
0
          premises by transfer, no application for the recovery of       ~-



          possession of such premises shall lie under this clause
          unless a period of one year has elapsed from the date
          of the acquisition :
E         Explanation - I - For the purposes of this clause and
          sections 28 to 31 -
               (i) where the landlord in his application supported
               by an affidavit submits that the premise are required
               by him for occupation for himself or for any member
F              of his family dependent on him, the Court shall           t"

               presume that the premises are so required;
               (ii) premises Jet for a particular use may be required
               by the landlord for a different use if such use is
G              permissible under law.
          Explanation -II - For the purposes of this clause and
          sections 28 and 31 an occupation by the landlord of any        ~
          part of a building of which any premises let out by him
          forms a part shall not disentitle him to recover the
H         possession of such premises.
            K. PUTIARAJU v. A. HANUMEGOWDA                  483
                 [TARUN CHATIERJEE, J]

     Explanation -Ill - For the purposes of this claus~, and A
     section 28 to 31 "owner of the premises" includes~ person
     who has been allotted such premises by the Bangalore
     Development Authority or any other local authority by
     way of an agreement of hire-purchase, lease or sub-
     lease, even before the full ownership rights accrue to B
     such hire-purchaser, lessee or sub-lessee, as the case
     may be."                          ~.i..~




       7. Ms. Suri, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
tenant/appellant submitted before us at the first instance that if
the aforesaid two provisions namely, Siaction 27(2)(r) of the Ac~ C
and Section 31 of the Act are read toget~er, one must come to
the conclusion that the aforesaid two provisions are not inde-
pendent of each other and while dealing with eviction on the
ground of bonafide requirement, the two provisions must be
read together. It was further submitted that since the landlord/ D
respondent is in possession of reasonable, suitable accom·
modation to the extent that the landlord is in possiassion of shop-
ping malls and 10 shops in the area in question, the High Court
as well as the Court below were in error in granting an order for
 eviction on the aforesaid provisions of the Act. It was further E
 submitted by Ms. Suri that the amendment of the eviction peti-
tion was wrongly allowed by the trial Court at the stage when
the evidence was already completed. She further argueq that
 the special provision of eviction as made in Section 31 of the
 Act could not be extended to the respondent as the appellant F
 had failed to satisfy the court that Explanation No. 11 in Section
 31 of the Act to the extent that the landlord- respondent had not
 taken this special provision even once earlier. This submission
 of the learned counsel for the appellant was hot!y contested by
 Mr. Chahar, learned senior counsel for the respondent, who sub-• G
 mitted that although in evidence, the respondent had admitted
 that he was having shopping malls and 10 shops but it has been
 brought to the notice of the Court that those shopping malls and
 10 shops are not in possession of the respondent nor there
 was any space ot room for starting a stationary b!Jsiness for his
                                                                    H
    484      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2008] 13 S.C.R.
                                                                          -
A handicapped son. He brought to our notice that the shopping
  malls and other 10 shops have already been sold out and, there-
  fore, it cannot be held that the respondent was in possession of
  reasonable, suitable accommodation for which no eviction or-
  der could be passed.
B         8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and
   taking note of the submissions made by the learned counsel,
   we are of the view that in view of provisions under Section 31 of
   the Act, the order of the High Court as well as the Small Causes
   Court, Bangalore cannot be interfered with for two simple rea-
C sons. One, we are unable to agree with Ms. Suri that the provi-
   sions under Section 27(2)(r) of the Act and the provisions un-
   der Section 31 of the Act are not independent to each other,
   and the other, on a reading of the aforesaid two provisions, there
   cannot be any doubt in our mind that Section 31 of the Act gives
D, a special right to some particular classes of landlords. There-
   fore, in our view, Section 31 of the Act, which imposes certain
   conditions on the landlord to get order of eviction of his tenant,
    is satisfied and the landlord is entitled to get an order of evic-
    tion without going to the provisions of Section 27(2)(r) of the
E Act. On a plain reading of Section 27(2)(r) of the Act and the
    scheme there under, we are of the view that the said provision
    has been given right to a landlord to evict his tenant inter alia
    on the ground of reasonable and bonafide requirement if he
    avers and proves that he reasonably requires the said shop for
F his own use and occupation and for the members of his family
    as he is not in possession of the reasonable, suitable accom-
    modation elsewhere. Therefore, the reading of this provision
    would clearly indicate that this 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
G reflect the policy of the legislature for rendering speedy justice
    to the landlords belonging to three categories of citizens, namely,
    a widow, a handicapped person and a person who is a citizen
    of above 65 years. For these three categories of persons, the
     legislature has introduced this provision for the purpose of giv-
H
                 K PUTTARAJU v. A HANUMEGOWDA                     485
                      [TARUN CHATTERJEE, J]
     ing immediate possession of the said premises to the land- A
     lord. Therefore, in our view, the aforesaid two provisions are
     quite independentof each other and they can be set in motion
     in the individual fields. Let us now deal with the question of
     amending the eviction petition at a later stage. It is true that the
,)   respondent filed the application for amendment of the eviction B
     petition when the evidence was over, but we do not find any
     jurisdictional error of the learned Judge of the Small Causes
     Court, whose order was affirmed by the High Court in revision
     and we are not inclined to interfere with the orders of the Courts
     below in the exercise of our discretionary power under Article c
     136 of the Constitution allowing the amendment of the eviction
     petition under Section 31 of the Act.
             9. Although, the application under Section 31 of the Act
     was filed belatedly but it is an admitted position that the ingre-
     dients required for getting an order of eviction under Section D
     31 of the Act were very much present except the requirement in
     Explanation Ne. 2 under Section 31 of the Act, requiring the
     respondent to plead that they have not availed the opportunity
     of getting the order of eviction under Section 31 of the Act ear-
     lier. Admittedly, the respondent was a senior citizen at the time E
     of filing of the eviction petition. In order to bring the eviction pe-
     tition within the purview of Section 31 of the Act, the respondent
     pleaded even at the belated stage that he had sought for evic-
     tion of the tenant on the ground made under Section 31 of the
     Act. An additional objection was filed by the- appellant to this F
     application for amendment. It was not pleaded by th~ appellant
     in their written objection that the respondent had taken this op-
     portunity once before and, therefore, he would not be entitled to
     come within the purview of Section 31 of the Act. After a close
     examination of the record of this case, we do not find that any- G
     where, eit~er in pleading or in the evidence, the appellants have
     brought to the notice of the Court that there was any eviction · - .
     petition filed before it earlier or the respondent had taken an ·
     advantage of this provision under Section 31 of the Act. That
     being the position, we do not find any reason to interfere with . H
    486      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2008] 13 S.C.R.


A the orders of the Courts below allowing the application for
  amendment of the eviction petition.
          10. Accordingly, only on the ground under Section 31 of
    the Act, we affirm the order of the High Court and we do not like
    to interfere with the order of the High Court in the exercise of    I.
8   our discretionary 'power under Article 136 of the Constitution of
    India. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in this appeal. The
    appeal is thus disposed of.
         11. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case,
c if the appellant files an undertaking in the Court within one month
  for giving vacant and peaceful possession to the respondent
  within nine months from the date of filing an undertaking on pay-
  ment of the rent at last paid, the appellant shall be 8ntitled to
  remain in possession for the aforesaid period of nine months.
  In default, it would be open to the respondent!o evict the appel-
0
  lant in accordance with law.
        12.       With these observations, the appeal is thus dis-
    posed of with no order as to costs.
E K.K.T.                                       Appeal disposed of.




                                                                        ,