# 13 S.C.R. 477 K. PUTIARAJU v. A. HANUMEGOWDA

- **Citation:** [2008] 13 S.C.R. 477
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2007-01-16
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 5648 of 2008
- **Bench:** Tarun Chatterjee, Aftab Alam
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/13-s-c-r-477-k-putiaraju-v-a-hanumegowda-23548
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

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 E
provision on earlier occasion - Rent control and Eviction.
Respondent-landlord filed an eviction petition u/s
27(2)(r) rlw s. 27(2)(j) of Karnataka Rent Act,'1999 in respect 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 reasonG
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.
B
Section 31 gives a special right to somt: particular classes
\_
of landlords. Therefore, Section 31, 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 eviction without going to the provisions of
c
Section 27(2)(r) of the Act. [Para 8J [484-8, C & DJ
1.2 Section 27(2)(r) is a general provision for eviction 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
D 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. Therefore, the aforesaid two provisions are quite
independent of each other and they can be set in motion
E in the individual fields. [Para 8J [484-E,F,G; 485-A]
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 exercise of the discretionary power under Article 136 of the
Constitution allowing the amendment of the eviction petition under Section 31 of the Act. [Para 8J [485-8 & CJ
G
2.2 Although, the application u/s. 31 was filed belatedly but it is an admitted position that the ingredients required 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 seA
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 a

## Text

(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 E
provision on earlier occasion - Rent control and Eviction.
Respondent-landlord filed an eviction petition u/s
27(2)(r) rlw s. 27(2)(j) of Karnataka Rent Act,'1999 in respect 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 reasonG
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.
B
Section 31 gives a special right to somt: particular classes
\_
of landlords. Therefore, Section 31, 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 eviction without going to the provisions of
c
Section 27(2)(r) of the Act. [Para 8J [484-8, C & DJ
1.2 Section 27(2)(r) is a general provision for eviction 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
D 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. Therefore, the aforesaid two provisions are quite
independent of each other and they can be set in motion
E in the individual fields. [Para 8J [484-E,F,G; 485-A]
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 exercise of the discretionary power under Article 136 of the
Constitution allowing the amendment of the eviction petition under Section 31 of the Act. [Para 8J [485-8 & CJ
G
2.2 Although, the application u/s. 31 was filed belatedly but it is an admitted position that the ingredients required 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 seA
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 below allowing the api;lication for amendment of the eviction 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
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.
2. The respondent/landlord herein filed an eviction petiE
F
tion under Section 27(2}(r) read with Section 27(2)0) of the
Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 (in short, the "Acf') ag9inst the appellant.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 handicapped. So far as the ground under Section 27(2)(r) of the Act
was concerned, the same was allowed and eviction was directed, 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 eviction 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 retired engineer in the Irrigation Department and a senior citizen,
the eviction petition should be allowed in his favour. The younger
0 son, for whom the said shop was required, was/is a handicapped 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 orE 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 findG ing of the learned Judge of the Small Causes Court at Bangalore and directed eviction of the appellant from the said shop
also on the ground under Section 31 of the Act. Feeling aggrieved 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 SecB
tion 27(2)0) of the Act, out of which the ground under Section
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 :-
"Right to recover immediate possession of premises to D
-../
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 E
an the presmies let out by him, is required for use by her
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 subF
.,
section (1) has let out more than one premises, it shall
be open to him to make an application under that subsection in respect of any one residential and one nonresidential 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 :
0
Provided that where the landlord has required the
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
F
by him for occupation for himself or for any member
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 sublease, 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 independent 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 shopping 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 petition 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, therefore, it cannot be held that the respondent was in possession of
reasonable, suitable accommodation for which no eviction order 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 reaC sons. One, we are unable to agree with Ms. Suri that the provisions under Section 27(2)(r) of the Act and the provisions under 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. Therefore, 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 eviction 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 accommodation elsewhere. Therefore, the reading of this provision
would clearly indicate that this is a general provision for eviction 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 givH
-
,)
K PUTTARAJU v. A HANUMEGOWDA
[TARUN CHATTERJEE, J]
485
ing immediate possession of the said premises to the landA
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 ingredients 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 earlier. Admittedly, the respondent was a senior citizen at the time E
of filing of the eviction petition. In order to bring the eviction petition within the purview of Section 31 of the Act, the respondent
pleaded even at the belated stage that he had sought for eviction 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 opportunity 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 anyG
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
8
to interfere with the order of the High Court in the exercise of
I.
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 payment of the rent at last paid, the appellant shall be 8ntitled to
remain in possession for the aforesaid period of nine months.
0
In default, it would be open to the respondent!o evict the appellant in accordance with law.
12.
With these observations, the appeal is thus disposed of with no order as to costs.
E K.K.T.
Appeal disposed of.
,