TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court Upholds Landlady's Eviction Request Due to Family Needs</h1> <h3>Smt. Girijamma And Others Versus M/s. Kamala Engineering Works</h3> Smt. Girijamma And Others Versus M/s. Kamala Engineering Works - TMI Issues Involved:1. Eviction under Section 21(1)(h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961.2. Eviction under Section 21(1)(p) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961.3. Relative hardship to the tenant and landlord.4. Requirement of quit notice.5. Feasibility of partial eviction.6. Amendment of statement of objections and production of additional evidence.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Eviction under Section 21(1)(h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961:The landlady sought eviction under Section 21(1)(h) citing the need for her daughter, a divorcee trained in tailoring, to start her own business and live independently. She also mentioned the insufficient accommodation for her family, including her ailing condition requiring ground floor access. The tenant opposed, arguing the existing accommodation was sufficient and questioned the genuineness of the need. The court found the requirement both reasonable and bona fide, noting the growing family size and the specific needs of the petitioners. The court upheld the eviction order under Section 21(1)(h).2. Eviction under Section 21(1)(p) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961:The landlady also sought eviction under Section 21(1)(p), claiming the tenant had acquired another property suitable for his business. The tenant contested this, and the court found the evidence insufficient to prove that the new property was suitable for the tenant's business. Consequently, the court dismissed the eviction under Section 21(1)(p).3. Relative Hardship to the Tenant and Landlord:The court assessed the relative hardship and concluded that greater hardship would be inflicted on the petitioners if eviction was denied. The tenant's alternative accommodation options were considered, and the court found the tenant's evidence regarding attempts to secure alternative premises unconvincing. The court upheld the finding of greater hardship to the landlord.4. Requirement of Quit Notice:The court addressed the tenant's argument regarding the necessity of a quit notice before initiating eviction proceedings. It concluded that no quit notice was required before filing the eviction petition, consistent with the legal provisions.5. Feasibility of Partial Eviction:The court examined the feasibility of partial eviction and found it impractical. The area in dispute was integral to the tenant's business operations, and the petitioners' family needed the entire space. Thus, partial eviction was deemed neither practical nor feasible.6. Amendment of Statement of Objections and Production of Additional Evidence:The tenant filed applications to amend the statement of objections and to produce additional evidence. The court dismissed these applications, finding no substantial grounds for the amendments or the introduction of additional evidence. The court noted that the tenant was aware of the relevant facts earlier and failed to act diligently.Conclusion:The court upheld the eviction order under Section 21(1)(h), dismissed the application under Section 21(1)(p), and rejected the tenant's applications for amendment and additional evidence. The tenant was granted 12 months to vacate the premises, subject to regular rent payments.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
