Chandra Kumar vs Smt. U.V. Rekha

S.N. Satyanarayana, J.—The respondent-tenant in HRC No. 20 of 2013 on the file of learned I Additional Civil Judge, Shivamogga, has come up in this revision petition challenging the order of eviction dated 17-7-2014, which is confirmed by order dated 14-3-2016 passed in Revision (Rent) No. 16 of 2014 on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Shivamogga.

Admittedly, respondent herein is the landlady. Revision petitioner is tenant of a non-residential shop premises (Malige No. 4) bearing new Assessment No. 438/899 situate in 2nd Cross, Savarline Road, Shivamogga City. Admittedly, the property comprising of petition shop earlier belonged to husband of the petitioner, late U.S. Vijendra. After his demise, respondent herein - Smt. U.V. Rekha and her son, Sri U.V. Pramod, have inherited the said property and khata of the same is standing in their name. It is not in dispute that the larger property owned by respondent-landlady consists of ten tenements, out of which, a non-residential shop bearing No. 4 is let out to revision petitioner-tenant on a monthly rent. The tenancy is not in dispute. The respondent-landlady has initiated proceedings through her power of attorney holder, who is none other than her son, in HRC No. 20 of 2013 seeking eviction of the revision petitioner-tenant from the petition schedule shop, where he is said to be running tailoring business under the name and style ''Chandra Khaja Center''. The litigation is initiated in the year 2013.

The material on record would indicate that prior to filing of the petition for eviction, the respondent-landlady has made arrangement for taking up construction of multistoried building on the said property in order to set up a nursing home. In that connection, as existing building is required to be demolished, she has initiated eviction proceedings against all the tenants including revision petitioner, who is tenant in respect of Shop No. 4. It has come on record that two tenants of Shop Nos. 2 and 10 have already vacated their respective shops and in respect of remaining seven tenants other than the revision petitioner (respondent in HRC No. 20 of 2013), eviction orders have been passed and they have agreed to vacate their respective shops within a time frame.

In the proceedings before the Court below, respondent-tenant filed objections to the eviction petition inter alia disputing the rate of rent as also the intention of the petitioner-landlady to construct nursing home on the petition premises.

In the said eviction proceedings, petitioner-landlady got herself examined as P.W. 1 and she examined son of another tenant-Sri Thangavelu, against whom she had initiated eviction proceedings, as P.W. 2. She has got marked documents-Exs. P. 1 to P. 13. The respondent-tenant got himself examined as R.W. 1 and got marked documents-Exs. R. 1 to R. 16.

The Trial Court has taken into consideration the fact that the petitioner-landlady with an intention to construct nursing home on the property comprising of petition Shop No. 4, which is let out to respondent-tenant, had initiated eviction proceedings against tenants of all tenements and all tenants except the respondent have either vacated or agreed to vacate their respective shops within a time frame. Accordingly, the Trial Court, by order dated 17-7-2014, has held that the petitioner-landlady has proved that herself and her family required the petition premises for their bona fide use and occupation and allowed the eviction petition. The said order of eviction was subject-matter of challenge in revision petition in Rev. (Rent) No. 16 of 2014 on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Shivamogga. The learned District Judge, by order dated 14-3-2016 has dismissed the revision petition while confirming the order of eviction passed by the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the same, tenant has preferred this second revision petition.

Heard the learned Counsel for petitioner as well as the respondent. Perused the material on record. Though several objections including the objection with reference to non-production of power of attorney said to have been executed by landlady-Smt. U.V. Rekha in favour of her son, Sri U.V. Pramod, are raised by learned Counsel for revision petitioner at the time of arguing this petition, the same were not raised at the time of contesting the proceedings in the eviction Court.

The property including petition Shop No. 4 originally belonged to U.S. Vijayendra, the husband of respondent-landlady. The khata of the said property is presently standing in the name of respondent-Smt. U.V. Rekha and her son, Dr. U.V. Pramod. Therefore, son of the respondent-landlady would also be a person having equal right in the petition shop, which could be gathered and ascertained from the material available on record. Admittedly, proceedings in HRC No. 20 of 2013 are summary proceedings. It is well-within the limits of Courts below to gather such opinion with the material available on record without seeking strict proof of the same, more particularly, when the revision petitioner-tenant has not contested seriously the said issue of non-production of power of attorney by respondent-landlady before the eviction Court except making statement to that effect in the objections.

The Trial Court taking note of the need of the petitioner-landlady and her family, the nature of property and the manner in which the developmental activity with reference to setting up of nursing home is sought to be undertaken by her, has passed the order of eviction on 17-7-2014 while granting one month to the respondent-tenant to vacate the shop premises. The said order was subject-matter of challenge in revision on the file of II Additional District Judge. The First Revisional Court, on re-appreciation of the pleadings and evidence available on record, has dismissed the petition with costs. However, while dismissing the petition, Revisional Court has felt that time need not be extended for vacating the petition premises.

When this second revision petition had come up for admission on earlier occasions, request was made by the revision petitioner-tenant seeking additional time for vacating the petition shop. The respondent-landlady was agreeable for grant of reasonable time to revision petitioner for vacating the shop in question subject to revision petitioner shifting himself to a shop in the corner of the building to enable the landlady to take up development work in phased manner. However, the revision petitioner was adamant in asserting that he would continue in the very same shop though it is likely to cause hardship to respondent-landlady, who had agreed to take up the project for setting up nursing home on her property in phased manner, which is not accepted by the revision petitioner. Therefore, conduct on the part of the revision petitioner-tenant to hold the respondent-landlady to ransom to see that the entire project is jeopardised cannot be entertained and it is neither the intention of this Court nor the Courts below. If this kind of prayers are considered, it is nothing but to encourage unrighteous litigation.

Hence, this Court find that there being no error or illegality in the eviction order passed by the Trial Court in HRC No. 20 of 2013, which is confirmed by the First Revisional Court in Rev. (Rent) No. 16 of 2014, no justifiable grounds are made out to interfere with the same. Accordingly, this second revision filed by respondent in HRC No. 20 of 2013 is hereby rejected. This Court find that the revision petitioner-tenant has not made out any case for extension of time for vacating the petition shop. Therefore, it is needless to say that the revision petitioner shall forthwith vacate the petition schedule premises and handover vacant possession of the same to the respondent-landlady, failing which, the landlady is at liberty to levy execution and take possession of the same.

In view of dismissal of this revision petition, LA. No. 1 of 2016 for temporary injunction does not survive for consideration and the same stands disposed of.