IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.4536 OF 2008 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.17996 of 2006)

Somanathasa Baddi    … Appellant(s)

Versus

Chanabasappa & Ors.   … Respondent(s)

O R D E R

Heard learned counsel for the parties

Leave granted.

Ist Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)(Rent Controller) relied on the

provision contained in  Explanation  (i)  appearing  below Section 27(2)(r)  of  the

Karnataka  Rent  Act,  1999  (for  short  ‘the  Act’)  and  granted  the  respondents

prayer for eviction on the ground of  bona fide necessity.  That order has been

confirmed in revision by the learned Additional District Judge. When the High

Court was moved against the said order, it  refused to interfere with the same.

Hence, this appeal by special leave.

Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the impugned orders are

liable to be set aside because the Rent Controller and Additional District Judge

gravely erred by relying on Explanation (i)  appearing below Section  27(2)(r),

ignoring  the  fact  that the eviction

...2/-

- 2 -  

petition filed by the respondents was not supported by an affidavit.  He further

argued that High Court also committed serious error by upholding the order of

eviction on the ground that the verification of the eviction petition was certified by

the Administrative Officer of the Trial Court.  Learned counsel emphasized that

presumption envisaged in Explanation (i) appearing below Section 27(2)(r) of the

Act, is required to be raised, only if the petition for eviction is supported by an

affidavit and not otherwise and in the present case no such affidavit had been

filed.   

Learned counsel for the respondents supported the order of eviction and

argued that the Courts below rightly relied on Explanation (i) appearing below

Section 27(2)(r) of the Act because the verification of the eviction petition was duly

certified by the Administrative Officer of the trial Court.   

We have considered the  respective  submissions.   Section 27(1)(2)(r)  and

Explanation (i) appended thereto reads thus:

“27. Protection  of  tenants  against  eviction  –  (i)  Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract, no order or decree for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made by the Court, District Judge or High Court in favour of the landlord against a tenant, save as provided in sub-section (2).   

(2) The Court may, on an application made to it in the prescribed manner, make an order for the recovery of possession of the premises on one or more of the following grounds only, namely, ---

(a) to (q)  xxx xxx xxx ...3/-

- 3 -  

(r) that the premises let are required, whether in the same form or  after  re-construction  or  re-building,  by  the  landlord  for occupation for himself or for any member of his family if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whom benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable accommodation.

Explanation I – For the purposes of this clause and Section 28 to 31 –

(i) where  the  landlord  in  his  application  supported  by  an affidavit  submits  that  the  premises  are  required  by  him  for occupation for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, the Court shall presume that the premises are so required.”  

From a bare reading of the aforesaid provision, we have no difficulty in

accepting  the  argument  of  the  learned  counsel  for  the  appellant  that  if  an

application for eviction of the tenant is filed on the ground enumerated in clause

(r) aforesaid and is duly supported by an affidavit, it is imperative for the Court to

presume that the landlord requires the premises for his own occupation or for any

member  of  his  family  dependent  on  him.   The  presumption  contemplated  by

Explanation (i) is rebuttable and the tenant can lead evidence to show that the

landlord does not require the premises for his own occupation or for any member

of his family dependent on him for that his need is not bona fide.   

In the present case, we find that the eviction petition was not supported by

an affidavit of the landlord.  The verification of the plaint, which is said to  have

been  certified by  the Administrative Officer of

....4/-

- 4 -  

the trial Court, cannot be treated as an affidavit. Therefore, no presumption could

have been raised by the Rent Controller that the landlord needed the premises for

occupation for himself or for any member of his family.   

A careful scrutiny of the record shows that the parties did lead oral as well

as documentary evidence on the issue of requirement of the landlord, but neither

the  Rent  Controller  nor  Additional  District  Judge  considered  the  same  and

recorded a finding that de hors the presumption contemplated in Explanation (i)

appearing  below  Section  27(2)(r),  the  landlord  has  been  able  to  prove  his

requirement for the premises in dispute.  

In view of the above, it must be held that the order of eviction was passed

by the Rent Controller on an unfounded premise and the same is liable to be set

aside.  On the same ground, the orders passed by the Additional District Judge

and the High Court are liable to be set aside.  

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, impugned orders are set aside and the

matter is remitted to the original authority to dispose of the original proceeding in

accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties.  

No costs.  

     ……………………………… J.      [B.N. AGRAWAL]

     ……………………………… J.

     [G.S. SINGHVI] New Delhi, July 18, 2008.