Skip to content


Narayana Govind Anikhindi Vs. Venugopal Sitaram Sarada - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil;Tenancy
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Case NumberC.R.P. No. 3222 of 1984
Judge
Reported inILR1985KAR2916; 1986(1)KarLJ314
ActsKarnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 - Sections 21(1)
AppellantNarayana Govind Anikhindi
RespondentVenugopal Sitaram Sarada
Appellant AdvocateN.A. Mandgi, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateW.K. Joshi, Adv.
DispositionPetition dismissed
Excerpt:
.....by the landlord and therefore what was required was only the mere carrying out of the repairs which could be done even when he was in occupation. ' (underlining is mine) construing the said provision it was clearly held by this court that it was not correct to say that an order undersection 21(1)(j) of the act cannot be sought for unless the premises in the occupation of the tenant was so dilapidated as to require demolition, demolition of an existing building may be made or become reasonably necessary for reasons other than its impaired condition. its replacement by a bigger or more modern structure, which makes it more suitable for occupation or enhance the landlord's income, is as good a ground for its demolition as its deteriorated condition would be and there could be other..........pleadings in the petition filed in the court of munsiff. i do not think that this court is ever likely to grant such an application in order to cure the defect pointed out by the district judge.7. revision petition as well as the application for amendment are dismissed.
Judgment:
ORDER

Chandrakantaraj Urs, J.

1. This is a landlord's Revision under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code and is directed against the order and decree dated 2-9-1983 passed by the District Judge, Bijapur, in Civil Revision Petition No. 33 of 1980 on his file. That matter came before him under sub section (2) of Section 50 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961. Thepetitioner landlord initiated eviction proceedings in the Court of the Munsiff at Jamakhandi on the ground that the petition premises in question was required for demolition and re-construction as the building was more than 100 years old and in the year 1974 in the month of October or thereafter, a portion of building's ceiling had collapsed.

2. It would be useful to state the undisputed facts. In the interregnum following the collapse in October 1976 and the presentation of the petition by the landlord for eviction under the Rent Control Act in the Court of the Munsiff, Jamkhandi, in July 1975, there was some negotiation between the landlord and the tenant in regard to the action one or the other should take. The tenant had suggested that the landlord should repair the building while the landlord wanted the tenant to vacate the building so that he may reconstruct the building after demolition. In fact, the averment of the landlord is that the brother of the tenant who had died sometime before the filing of the petition had assured the landlord that if six months time was given, he would vacate for the purpose of reconstruction anddemolition. The tenant evidently resisted the eviction petition on the ground that the building did not require demolition and reconstruction, that the building was in good condition except that the roof had fallen due to the impropermaintenance by the landlord and therefore what was required was only the mere carrying out of the repairs which could be done even when he was in occupation.

3. On these pleadings, the evidence was led by parties supporting their respective cases. The Munsiff afterappreciating the evidence before him directed eviction of the tenant. The tenant aggrieved by the said order preferred revision before the District Judge as referred to earlier. In the revision, the Learned District Judge in disagreeing with the reasoning of the Munsiff in regard to the evidence placed before him has nevertheless allowed the revision petition of the tenant and set aside the order of the Munsiff, Jamkhandi, on the ground that the pleadings did not provide adequate ground for the landlord to seek eviction under that provision of law as there was no employment of the words 'for the immediate purpose of demolition' occurring in clause (j) of sub section (1) of Section 21 of the Act By doing so, he did no more than follow a decision of this Court. There-fore, the present revision petition before this Court.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the District Judge was in error in insisting upon the use of the words 'for the immediate purpose of demolition' in the pleadings. I do not think that contention should be taken serious notice of. Learned District Judge has done no more than follow a judgment of this Court dated 30-1-1968 in the case of Lidwine Mathias v. Madhava and another, 1968 (2) Mys. L.T. 120. Clause (j ) of the proviso of sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Act reads:

'That the premises are reasonably and bond fide required by the land-lord for the immediatepurpose of demolishing them and such demolition is to be made for the purpose of erecting a new building in place of the premises sought to be demolished.'

(Underlining is mine)

Construing the said provision it was clearly held by this Court that it was not correct to say that an order underSection 21(1)(j) of the Act cannot be sought for unless the premises in the occupation of the tenant was so dilapidated as to require demolition, Demolition of an existing building may be made or become reasonably necessary for reasons other than its impaired condition. Its replacement by a bigger or more modern structure, which makes it more suitable for occupation or enhance the landlord's income, is as good a ground for its demolition as its deteriorated condition would be and there could be other equally good justification for the removal of the existing structure and the erection of another... Even when the requirement is reasonable and bona fide an order for demolition under Section 2l(1)(j) is possible only if there is prospect for immediate demolition of the existing building. In other words, what should be pleaded is that there is a plan ready, a project ready and that the landlord has prepared himself to carry into effect such a plan or project by which he wants to demolish and reconstruct in place of the demolished building with a new structure. That goes to establish his bona fide. Mere deteriorated condition as held by this Court earlier is not an adequate ground. There may be other reasons than the dilapidated condition of the building as pointed out. But, what is essential ingredient impelling the court to grant a decree is the demonstration of the land lord of his intention, the project or the plan whichdemonstrates the urgency of the requirement of the premises for the purpose of demolition. Whether the word 'immediate' is pleaded or not may be immaterial. But, what should be necessarily pleaded is to bring out the immediacy orimminence of the requirement of urgency for such demolition.

5. Mr. Mandgi contended that it was a mere technical error. It is not so. The pleading is an important aspect of our method of resolution of the dispute in a Court of Law. It is the foundation of the case. If the foundation is not sound and clear, the party who is likely to be affected by such pleading will not have adequate and full opportunity to meet the case. Such lacunae in pleadings cannot be brushed aside as technical error.

6. Mr. Mandgi next contended that he has made an application in this Court under Order 6 Rule 17 for amendment of the pleadings in the petition filed in the Court of Munsiff. I do not think that this Court is ever likely to grant such an application in order to cure the defect pointed out by the District Judge.

7. Revision Petition as well as the application for amendment are dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //