Holding

The High Court’s order granting eviction was set aside because the statutory conditions under Section 27(2)(r) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 were not duly established.

Summary

The respondent, a widow and co‑owner of a residential flat in Bangalore, filed an eviction petition under Section 27(2)(r) read with Section 31 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, claiming the premises were dilapidated and needed demolition and reconstruction for her and her children’s use. The Small Causes Court dismissed the petition, finding that the respondent failed to prove a bonafide need for the premises and that she had no other reasonably suitable accommodation. The High Court reversed that decision, directing eviction without examining whether the statutory conditions – demolition necessity, capacity to rebuild, and lack of suitable alternative housing – were satisfied. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the High Court was not justified in overturning the trial court’s finding because it did not make the required determinations under Section 27(2)(r). The Court clarified that a landlord (or co‑owner) must prove the premises are so dilapidated that demolition is required, that reconstruction is feasible, and that the landlord and family have no other suitable accommodation before eviction can be ordered. Consequently, the appeal was partly allowed, the High Court’s order was set aside, and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration in accordance with the Supreme Court’s findings.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the Small Causes Court’s dismissal of the eviction petition.
Whether the respondent satisfied the conditions prescribed under Section 27(2)(r) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 for eviction on the ground of bona‑fide requirement.
Whether the respondent had any other reasonably suitable accommodation.
Whether the premises were so dilapidated that demolition and reconstruction were necessary and feasible.

Legislation cited

Karnataka Rent Act, 1999s. 27(2)(r), s. 31

Subjects

evictionrent controlbona fide requirementdemolitionreconstructionco‑ownershipKarnataka Rent ActSection 27(2)(r)Section 31landlord‑tenant law

Judgment

K.N. ANANTHARAJA GUPTA A
v.
SMT. D.V. USHA VIJAYKUMAR

NOVEMBER 30, 2007
B
(TARUN CHATTERJEE AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.]

Rent Control and Eviction:
Karnataka Rent Act, 1999-s.27(2)(r) rlw s.31-Eviction C
Petition-On the ground of bonafide requirement of premises on
reconstruction after demolition-Trial court denied, while High Court
directing eviction-On appeal, held: Eviction not justified-Eviction
was granted without a finding that landlady was not in possession of
1
reasonably suitable. accommodation and that the premises needed
demolition-Matter remitted to High Court for reconsideration. D
Respondent-landlady, a widow filed an eviction petition u/s
27(2)(r) r/w Section 31 of Karnataka Rent Act for eviction of the
appellant-tenant from the suit premises (residential premises), on
the ground that the premises was old and in a dilapidated condition, E
which required to be demolished in order to put up new construction;
and that the landlady required the premises for use and occupation
by herself and her children. She was living in the house of her Cather-
in-law. Small Causes Court dismissed the petition on the ground that
, -1 the landlady failed to prove that she bad bonafide need of the F
premises after demolition and reconstruction and that she had no
other reasonably suitable accommodation. Revision petition against
the order was allowed by the High Court directing eviction of the
appellant. Hence the present appeal.

Partly allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to the High G
-- Court, the Court
HELD: 1. High Court was not justified in reversing the
judgment of the Small Causes Court without being satisfied as to
749 H
750 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 12 S.C.R.

A whether the respondent had fulfilled the conditions required for
eviction of the appellant as laid down under Section 27(2)(r) of the
Karnataka Rent Act. [Para 4) [752-H; 753-A)

2. No order or decree for the recovery of possession of any
premises shall be made by the court against the tenant, save as
B
provided in Section 27(2). A plain reading of Section 27(2)(r) would
clearly show that a decree for eviction or an order for recovery of
possession can be passed by a court if the premises let is required,
whether in the same form or after reconstruction or rebuilding by
the landlord for occupation for himself or for any member of his
C family if: (i)heis the owner of the said premises and (ii) the landlord
or such person has no other reasonably suitable accommodation.
[Para4) [753-E,F,G)

3. In the present case, the respondent is, admittedly, a co-owner
D of the suit premises. It is well settled that a co-owner is entitled to
evict a tenant on the ground of bona fide requirement. From the
record, it does not appear that there has been any threat of eviction
of the respondent and her children by her father-in-law from the
house in which they are presently residing. This aspect of the matter,
E was not taken into consideration by the High Court. Before passing
any order of eviction, it was the duty of the High Court to come to a
finding that the respondent was not in possession of a reasonably
suitable accommodation, which is the mandatory requirement under
Section 27(2)(r) of the Act. [Para 4] [754-G; 755-B, CJ

F 4. In order to satisfy the condition u/s 27(2)(r), it is essential
that the court should also find that the premises let needs to be
demolished and that the same would be reconstructed after
demolition. It is only after this that the question of user of the same
after reconstruction would be taken into consideration. From the
G order of the High Court it would be evident that the only ground on
which the order of Small Causes Co.urt, was reversed was that the
respondent needed the suit premises to demolish the same and to
take up new construction and obtain plans from the authority. Before
granting a decree for eviction on the ground of demolition and
H reconstruction and then for use of the same for occupation, the court
·~

K.N.ANANTHARAJAGUPTAv. D.V. USHA 751
~ "-i VIJA YKUMAR [TARUN CHATTERJEE,J.]
must be satisfied that: - (i) the suit premises is so dilapidated that it A
needs demolition; (ii) the landlord has the capacity to reconstruct
the suit premises after demolition; (iii) the sanctioned plan has to
be taken from the concerned authority.
[Para 5] (755-D, E, F, G; 756-A]
B
5. The High Court proceeded only on the ground that the
respondent required the suit premises for occupation by herself and
her children and needed to demolish and take up a new construction
on the same. This would not satisfy the requirements envisaged in
Section 27(2)(r) of the Act. The court must be satisfied that all the
conditions, as enumerated above, have been satisfied by the c
landlord by production of cogent evidence in respect of the same.
Only an expression of desire would not entitle the landlord to get a
decree for eviction under Section 27(2)(r) of the Act.
1 (Para 5] [756-A, B, C]
D
6. High Court, while reversing the order of the Chief Judge,
Small Causes Court, Bangalore had also not adhered to the aspect
of the matter that the eviction petition was filed not only under
Section 27(2)(r) of the Act but also under Section 31 of the Act,
recourse to which is available to a widow only once.
E
[Para 6] [756-C, DJ
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5547 of
2007.

, i From the Judgment and final Order dated 19.10.2006 of the High
F
Court ofKarnataka at Bangalore in H.R.R.P. No. 366 of2004.
S.N. Bhat for the Appellant.

K. Maruthi Rao, K. Radha and Anjani Aiyagari for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by G
-
- ._,
T ARUN CHATTERJEE, J. I. Leave granted.
2. An eviction petition being HRC No. 233 of2002 was filed before
the Chief Judge, Small Causes Court, Bangalore for eviction of the
appellant from the residential premises bearing No. I 00, Surveyor Street, H
752 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 12 S.C.R.

A Bangalore-4 (in short "the suit premises") under Section 27(2)(r) read
with Section 31 of the Karnataka Rent Act (in short "the Act") on the
ground that since the suit premises is old and in a dilapidated condition,
the same was required to be demolished in order to put up a new
construction and that the respondent required the suit premises for use
B and occupation by herself and her children after demolition and
reconstruction of the same as she and her children were staying in her
father in law's house. It was also the case of the respondent that the
appellant had been residing in the suit premises for more than 20 years
and therefore, he should find his own suitable accommodation and
c accordingly, he was liable to be evicted.
3. A written statement was filed by the appellant in which the
allegations made in the eviction petition were denied and it was stated
that the respondent was not entitled to evict the appellant as she did not
require the suit premises for her bona fide use and occupation. It was
D further alleged in the written statement that since the respondent was not
the sole owner of the suit premises, the eviction petition filed at her instance
only was not maintainable and therefore, the same was liable to be
dismissed. It was also alleged that the condition of the suit premises was
not so dilapidated for which demolition and reconstruction was necessary.
E The Chief Judge of the Small Causes Court, Bangalore by his order dated
I st of April, 2004 dismissed the eviction petition of the respondent.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Chief Judge of the Small Causes
Court at Bangalore, the respondent filed a revision petition before the High
Court ofKamataka at Bangalore being H.R.R.P No. 366 of2004. The
F High Court by it's order dated 19th of October, 2006, had set aside the
order of the Chief Judge of the Small Causes Court thereby allowing the
revision petition and directing eviction of the appellant from the suit
premises but granted six months time to vacate and handover the
possession of the same to the respondent. It is this order of the High
G Court, which is now under challenge in this court by way of a special
leave petition in respect of which leave has already been granted.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the
impugned order of the High Court as well as the order of the Small Causes
Court and the other materials on record. In our view, the High Court wa5
H
K.N.ANANTHARAJAGUPTAv. D.V. USHA 753
VIJAYKUMAR [TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.]
not justified in reversing the judgment of the Small Causes Court without A
being satisfied whether the respondent had fulfilled the conditions required
for eviction of the appellant as laid down under Section 27(2)(r) of the
Act. Chapter 6 of the Act deals with regulation of eviction. Section 27 of
the Act deals with protection of tenants against eviction. Sub-section (1)
-1 of Section 27 clearly says that notwithstanding anything to the contrary B
contained in any other law or contract, no order or decree for the recovery
of possession of any premises shall be made in favour of the landlord save
as provided in sub-section (2) of Section 27. Sub-section (2) of Section
27 empowers the court, on an application made to it in the prescribed
manner, to make an order for the recovery of possession of the premises c
on one or more of the grounds enumerated therein. Clause (r) of sub-
section (2) of Section 27 being one such ground and involved in present
case runs as under:
-J "(r) that the premises let are required, whether in the same form
or after re-construction or re-building, by the landlord for D
occupation for himself or for any member of his family if he is the
owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises
are held and that the landlord or such person has no other
reasonably suitable accommodation ....... "
E
We have examined this provision viz., Section 27(2)(r) of the Act
in detail. After a careful examination of this provision, we summarize as
follows:

• i No order or decree for the recovery of possession of any premises
shall be made by the court against the tenant, save as provided in Section F
27(2). A plain reading of Section 27(2Xr) would clearly show that a decree
for eviction or an order for recovery of possession can be passed by a
court if the premises let is required, whether in the same form or after
reconstruction or rebuilding by the landlord for occupation for himself or
for any member of his family if: G
(i) he is the owner of the said premises and
(ii) the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable
accommodation.
H
754 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 12 S.C.R.

A It is only when the aforesaid conditions are satisfied the court can
pass an order or decree of possession of the suit premises against the
tenant. We have already noted that the eviction petition of the respondent
was dismissed by the Chief Judge, Small Causes Court, Bangalore on
the ground that the respondent had failed to prove that the suit premises
B was required for use and occupation by herself and her children after
demolition and reconstruction and that the respondent had failed to prove
that she and her children had no other reasonably suitable accommodation.
This finding as to Bonafide requirement of the respondent was reversed
by the High Court in revision. Let us, therefore, examine whether the High
c Court was justified in reversing the finding of the Chief Judge, Small
Causes Court, Bangalore and whether the conditions as required under
Section 27(2)(r) of the Act have been satisfied so as to evict the appellant
from the suit premises. While reversing the finding of the Chief Judge, Small
Causes Court, Bangalore, so far as the requirements of Section 27(2)(r)
D are concerned, the High Court made the following findings: -
"It is also emerged on the face of it that the petitioner needs the
accommodation for her and her children and she needs to demolish
and take up a construction and obtain plan from the authority. lbis
aspect of the matter has been overlooked by the Trial Court.
E Therefore, I am of the considered view that the petitioner has made
out a case. The premises is required for her occupation to take
up the construction and to give the same for personal use by her
children as the claim is bona.fide."

F Having found as quoted hereinabove, the High Court reversed the
order of the Chief Judge, Small Causes Court, Bangalore and held that
the respondent was entitled to an order of eviction under Section 27(2)(r)
of the Act. As noted hereinabove, before an order or decree for eviction
is passed, the court must be satisfied that the premises let is required by
the landlord for occupation for himself or for any member of his family, if
G he is the owner of the same and the landlord or such person has no other
reas~mably suitable accommodation. In the present case, the respondent
..
is, admittedly, a co-owner of the suit premises. It is well settled that a
co-owner is entitled to evict a tenant on the ground of bona fide
requirement. However, this aspect need not be gone into in detail in view
H
K.N. ANANTHARAJAGUPTAv. D.V. USHA 755
VIJA YK.UMAR[TARUNCHATTERJEE,J.]
of the fact that the High Court had not recorded any finding on the question A
whether the respondent was an owner or co-owner in respect of the suit
premises. Now, the question is whether the respondent and her children
are in possession of a reasonably suitable accommodation. According to
the respondent, she has been living with her children in the residence of
-1 her father-in-law. The question would, therefore, be whether this B
accommodation could be said to be reasonably suitable accommodation.
Admittedly, from the record, it does not appear that there has been any
threat of eviction of the respondent and her children by her father-in-law
from the house in which they are presently residing. This aspect of the
matter, we are afraid, was not taken into consideration by the High Court. c
Before passing any order of eviction, it was the duty of the High Court
to come to a finding that the respondent was not in possession of a
reasonably suitable accommodation, which is the mandatory requirement
under Section 27(2)(r) of the Act.

-· 5. That apart, there is another aspect of this matter. As noted D
hereinabove, the eviction of the tenant was sought under Section 27(2)(r)
of the Act by alleging that the suit premises was required by the respondent
and her children for their own use and occupation after demolition and
reconstruction of the building already existing. In order to satisfy this
condition, as enumerated in Section 27(2)(r) of the Act, it is essential that E
the court should also find that the premises let needs to be demolished
and that the same would be reconstructed after demolition. It is only after
this that the question of user of the same after reconstruction would be
taken into consideration. From the order of the High Court passed in
revision, it would be evident that the only ground on which the order of F
the Chief Judge, Small Causes Court, Bangalore was reversed was that
the respondent needed the suit premises to demolish the same and to take
up new construction and obtain plans from the authority. In our view,
before granting a decree for eviction on the ground of demolition and
reconstruction and then for use of the same for occupation, the court must G
-- ~
be satisfied that: -
(i) the suit premises is so dilapidated that it needs demolition;
(ii) the landlord has the capacity to reconstruct the suit premises
after demolition;
H
+
756 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 12 S.C.R.
r t

A (Iii) the sanctioned plan has to be taken from the concerned
authority.
The High Court proceeded only on the ground that the respondent
required the suit premises for occupation by herself and her children and
needed to demolish and take up a new construction on the same. In our
B view, this would not satisfy the requirements envisaged in Section 27(2Xr)
of the Act. The court, as noted herein earlier, must be satisfied that all
the conditions, as enumerated above, have been satisfied by the landlord
by production of cogent evidence in respect of the same. Only an
expression of desire would not entitle the landlord to get a decree for
C eviction under Section 27(2)(r) of the Act.
6. Another aspect involved in this case needs to be stated because
the eviction petition was filed not only under Section 27(2)(r) of the Act
but also under Section 31 of the Act, recourse to which is available to a
widow only once. We, however, need not go into this question at all. In
D any view of the matter, the High Court, while reversing the order of the
Chief Judge, Small Causes Court, Bangalore had also not adhered to this
·-
aspect of the matter and therefore, it is also not necessary for us to go
into this question in this appeal.
E 7. For the reasons aforesaid, we are unable to sustain the order of
the High Court and accordingly, the impugned judgment of the High Court
is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the High Court for a
decision in the light of the findings made hereinabove. While deciding the
revision petition, it will be open to the High Court either to permit the
parties to lead evidence in the High Court or to frame the questions and
F direct the Chief Judge, Small Causes Court, Bangalore to take evidence
and to make a finding on the same, which may then be transmitted to the
High Court and thereafter, the High Court will decide the revision petition
in the light of the findings, the evidence adduced and the evidence already
on record within a period of six months from the date of supply of a copy
G of this order to it without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either
of the parties.
8. For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal is thus allowed to the extent
indicated above. There will be no order as to costs.
H K.K.T. Appeal partly allowed.