Karnataka High Court

Sri Mahadeva vs Dr C Sukumar on 2 August, 2024

Author: V Srishananda

Bench: V Srishananda

                                       -1-
                                                  NC: 2024:KHC:30801
                                                 HRRP No. 15 of 2021




                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                    DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

                                     BEFORE
                    THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
                    HOUSE RENT REV. PETITION NO.15 OF 2021
            BETWEEN:

            1.    SRI MAHADEVA
                  AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
                  S/O SRI MUDDAIAH
                  AUTO DRIVER
                  R/A 6TH CROSS, B H ROAD
                  BEHIND BHAT'S DENTAL CLINICK
                  B H ROAD
                  BHADRAVATHI
                  SHIMOGA DISTRICT-577301
                                                        ...PETITIONER
            (BY SRI Y K NARAYANA SHARMA, ADVOCATE)
            AND:

            1.    DR C SUKUMAR
                  AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
                  C/O BHATS DENTAL CLINIC
                  B H ROAD
Digitally
signed by         BHADRAVATHI
MALATESH          SHIMOGA DISTRICT-577301
KC                                                    ...RESPONDENT
Location:
HIGH        (BY SRI S.N.BHAT, ADVOCATE)
COURT OF
KARNATAKA

                 THIS HRRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC FILED
            AGAINST    THE   ORDER    DATED   23.04.2021   PASSED
            RR.NO.5002/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL
            DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, SHIMOGGA, SITTING AT
            BHADRAVATHI, DISMISSING THE RENT REVISION PETITION
            AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
                                  -2-
                                                NC: 2024:KHC:30801
                                              HRRP No. 15 of 2021




27.01.2021 PASSED IN HRC.NO.7/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE
PRINCIPAL   CIVIL  JUDGE AND JMFC., BHADRAVATHI.
ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SEC.27(2)(a) OF
KARNATAKA RENT ACT., 1999 PRAYING TO EVICTION OF THE
PETITIONER HEREIN IN THE PETITION.

     THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM:       HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA


                             ORAL ORDER

Heard Sri Y.K. Narayana Sharma, learned counsel for the

revision petitioner and Sri S.N. Bhat, learned counsel for the

respondent.

2. This second revision petition is filed by the

tenant/revision petitioner who suffered an order in HRC

No.7/2010, dated 27th January, 2021, on the file of Principal

Civil Judge and JMFC., Bhadravathi, confirmed by the IV

Additional District and Sessions Judge, Shimoga, sitting at

Bhadravathi, in Rent Revision No.5002/2021, dated 23rd April,

2021.

3. The arrears of rent after determination was not paid

regularly. Paragraph 27 of the Trial Court order reads as

under:

NC: 2024:KHC:30801

"27. In view of the above, the order of trial court attained finality and the respondent was bound to pay the rent of Rs.100/ p.m regularly to the petitioner or deposit the same in court. However, on perusal of order sheet it reveals that the respondent is irregular in his payments. The court ordered the respondent to pay the rent before 10th day of every month. But, since 13.12.2011 the respondent isn't regular in his payment of rent. In June 2013 respondent paid Rs.200/- i.e 2 months rent in one installment as he failed to pay the same in earlier month, in July 2013 he didn't pay rent and in August paid Rs.200/-, in June 2014 also he paid Rs.200/-, in Feb 2015 also he paid Rs.500/-, in June 2015 also he paid Rs.200/-, in Sep 2015 also he paid Rs.200/-, in July 2016 also he paid Rs.300/, in Sep 2016 also he paid Rs.200/-, in Aug 2017 also he paid Rs.200/-, in Nov 2017 also he paid Rs.300/-, in July 2018 also he paid Rs.600/-, in Dec 2018 also he paid Rs.300/-, in May 2019 also he paid Rs.200/-. There are numerous such irregular payments during the entire period, he used to pay several months rent in one installment instead of making monthly payments or deposits in court as directed by the court. Such recklessness and causal approach can't be condoned especially when the court ordered to pay only Rs.100/-p.m., when the petitioner was claiming Rs.350/-

p.m.

4. Taking note of the same, the Trial Court ordered

the eviction of the revision petitioner from the schedule

property by exercising the power vested in the Trial Court

NC: 2024:KHC:30801

under Section 27 (2) (a) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 (for

short 'Act').

5. Being aggrieved by the same, the revision

petitioner filed a first revision petition before the District Court,

Bhadravathi in rent revision petition No.5002/2021.

6. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court did not

find any good reasons to interfere with the order of the Trial

Court and dismissed the revision.

7. Being further aggrieved by the same, the petitioner

is present before this Court.

8. Sri Y.K. Narayanasharma, learned counsel for the

revision petitioner, vehemently addressed the arguments as to

the flaw committed by both the Courts in applying the

principles of law under the said Act by contending that when

once the order is passed and the rents are determined, time is

to be granted to pay the arrears and if the tenant pays the

arrears of the rent there cannot be eviction thereof. But, in the

case on hand, the petitioner has cleared up-to-date rents and

therefore, the eviction order needs to be set aside.

NC: 2024:KHC:30801

9. Alternatively, learned counsel for the revision

petitioner contended that in the event, this Court does not

agree with contentions raised on behalf of the revision

petitioner, reasonable time may be granted to vacate and hand

over the premises by the revision petitioner to the land lord.

10. Per contra, Sri S.N. Bhat, learned counsel for the

respondent/landlord supports impugned judgment and opposes

the revision grounds including the grant of time.

11. He further contended that the revision petitioner

was never regular in payment of rent as has been observed by

the learned Trial Judge in paragraph 27 of the impugned

judgment. Therefore, such a person should not be shown any

mercy in granting further time to vacate the premises and

sought for dismissal of the revision petition in toto.

12. Having heard the parties in detail, this Court

perused the material on record meticulously.

13. On such perusal of the material on record, it is

crystal clear that the revision petitioner was never regular in

NC: 2024:KHC:30801

payment of the rent. Even after the determination of the

quantum of arrears of rent, there were defaults committed by

the petitioner. The irregular payments of the rents is extracted

in paragraph No.27 of the impugned order as referred to supra.

14. Clearing the rents at whims and fancies of the

revision petitioner is what is not contemplated under the said

Act.

15. When once the arrears have been determined by

the Court and the time has been granted to clear the same,

tenant has to pay the rents as and when it accrues. Revision

petitioner has failed to do so in the case on hand. Mere

clearing the rents or paying rents in advance on couple of

occasions would not absolve the responsibility of the revision

petitioner as is enjoined under the said Act.

16. Accordingly, the eviction order passed by the Trial

Court approved by the First Appellate Court does not require

any interference by this Court that too in the second revision.

Accordingly, the eviction order is to be upheld.

NC: 2024:KHC:30801

17. Now coming to the question of alternate submission

made by Sri Y.K. Narayansharma is concerned, since the tenant

needs some breathing time to find alternate accommodation,

reasonable time is to be granted for vacating the premises.

18. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion

that if the time is granted till 31st of July 2025 to vacate and

hand over the premises, ends of justice will be met, subject to

the revision petitioner filing an undertaking that he would pay

the arrears of rent regularly, month by month or in advance for

the entire period and also undertake to vacate and hand over

the premises on or before 31st July 2025 without seeking

further extension of time.

Accordingly, following:

ORDER

Revision petition is allowed in part.

While upholding the eviction order passed by the learned

Trial Judge in HRC No.7/2010, confirmed in RRP No.5002/2021,

the time is granted to vacate and hand over the premises till

31st of July 2025.