Somanathasa Baddi Vs.
Chanabasappa & Ors.  INSC 1177 (18 July 2008)
JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.4536 OF 2008 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.17996
of 2006) Somanathasa Baddi ... Appellant(s) Versus Chanabasappa & Ors. ...
Respondent(s) ORDER Heard learned counsel for the parties Leave granted.
Ist Additional Civil
Judge (Junior Division)(Rent Controller) relied on the provision contained in
Explanation (i) appearing below Section 27(2)(r) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999
(for short `the Act') and granted the respondents prayer for eviction on the
ground of bona fide necessity. That order has been confirmed in revision by the
learned Additional District Judge. When the High Court was moved against the
said order, it refused to interfere with the same.
Hence, this appeal by
Learned counsel for
the appellant argued that the impugned orders are liable to be set aside
because the Rent Controller and Additional District Judge gravely erred by
relying on Explanation (i) appearing below Section 27(2)(r), ignoring the fact
that the eviction ...2/- -2- petition filed by the respondents was not
supported by an affidavit. He further argued that High Court also committed
serious error by upholding the order of eviction on the ground that the
verification of the eviction petition was certified by the Administrative
Officer of the Trial Court. Learned counsel emphasized that presumption
envisaged in Explanation (i) appearing below Section 27(2)(r) of the Act, is
required to be raised, only if the petition for eviction is supported by an
affidavit and not otherwise and in the present case no such affidavit had been
Learned counsel for
the respondents supported the order of eviction and argued that the Courts
below rightly relied on Explanation (i) appearing below Section 27(2)(r) of the
Act because the verification of the eviction petition was duly certified by the
Administrative Officer of the trial Court.
We have considered
the respective submissions. Section 27(1)(2)(r) and Explanation (i) appended
thereto reads thus:
of tenants against eviction - (i) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary
contained in any other law or contract, no order or decree for the recovery of
possession of any premises shall be made by the Court, District Judge or High
Court in favour of the landlord against a tenant, save as provided in
(2) The Court may, on
an application made to it in the prescribed manner, make an order for the
recovery of possession of the premises on one or more of the following grounds
only, namely, --- (a) to (q) xxx xxx xxx ...3/- -3- (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 his family if
he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whom benefit the premises are
held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable
Explanation I - For
the purposes of this clause and Section 28 to 31 - (i) where the landlord in
his application supported by an affidavit submits that the premises are
required by him for occupation for himself or for any member of his family
dependent on him, the Court shall presume that the premises are so
From a bare reading
of the aforesaid provision, we have no difficulty in accepting the argument of
the learned counsel for the appellant that if an application for eviction of
the tenant is filed on the ground enumerated in clause (r) aforesaid and is
duly supported by an affidavit, it is imperative for the Court to presume that
the landlord requires the premises for his own occupation or for any member of
his family dependent on him. The presumption contemplated by Explanation (i) is
rebuttable and the tenant can lead evidence to show that the landlord does not
require the premises for his own occupation or for any member of his family
dependent on him for that his need is not bona fide.
In the present case,
we find that the eviction petition was not supported by an affidavit of the
landlord. The verification of the plaint, which is said to have been certified
by the Administrative Officer of ....4/- -4- the trial Court, cannot be
treated as an affidavit. Therefore, no presumption could have been raised by
the Rent Controller that the landlord needed the premises for occupation for
himself or for any member of his family.
A careful scrutiny of
the record shows that the parties did lead oral as well as documentary evidence
on the issue of requirement of the landlord, but neither the Rent Controller
nor Additional District Judge considered the same and recorded a finding that
de hors the presumption contemplated in Explanation (i) appearing below Section
27(2)(r), the landlord has been able to prove his requirement for the premises
In view of the above,
it must be held that the order of eviction was passed by the Rent Controller on
an unfounded premise and the same is liable to be set aside. On the same
ground, the orders passed by the Additional District Judge and the High Court
are liable to be set aside.
appeal is allowed, impugned orders are set aside and the matter is remitted to
the original authority to dispose of the original proceeding in accordance with
law after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties.
AGRAWAL] .................................... J.
SINGHVI] New Delhi, July 18, 2008.