9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case include the reversal of a possession decree by the High Court, the eviction sought under Section 21(1)(h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, the amendment of the eviction petition, the consideration of the landlady's bona fide requirement, and the question of comparative hardship. Reversal of Possession Decree: The Trial Court's decree for recovery of possession against the respondent was reversed by the High Court in a revision preferred by the landlady. The High Court held that the principal cause for eviction, the sickness of the landlady's husband, ceased to exist during the case, and there were doubts about the landlady's own health justifying the shift to Bangalore. The High Court did not consider the comparative hardship but allowed the revision, directing dismissal of the eviction petition. Amendment of Eviction Petition: The landlady amended the eviction petition to reflect her own health issues and the need to shift to Bangalore for treatment. The Trial Court allowed this amendment, finding the landlady's requirement for the premises to be reasonable and bona fide. The High Court, while critical of the initial petition's contents, did not doubt the genuineness of the landlady's requirement but suggested filing a fresh petition with correct facts. Bona Fide Requirement and Comparative Hardship: The Supreme Court emphasized the concept of bona fide requirement, stating that it must be a sincere and honest desire, not a pretext. The Court noted that the landlady's need for treatment in Bangalore and better schooling for family members justified the eviction. The Court criticized the High Court for not adopting a realistic approach and restored the Trial Court's order, allowing the landlady's appeal and granting the tenant four months to vacate the premises. This judgment highlights the importance of a landlord's genuine need for eviction under rent control laws, the significance of amendments to pleadings to reflect changing circumstances, and the need for courts to consider the practical realities of the parties involved in eviction cases.
|
