ORDER
A.V. Sreenivasa Reddy, J.
1. The petitioner-tenant has presented this revision petition calling in question the validity and correctness of the impugned order dated 27th January, 2003 passed in H.R.C. No. 10191 of 1995 on the file of the V Additional Small Causes Judge, Mayo Hall Unit, Bangalore allowing the eviction petition and ordering eviction of the petitioner from the petition premises.
2. The respondent-landlord filed the petition in the Court below under Section 21(1)(h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 ('the repealed Act' for short), on the ground that the petition premises is required for establishing his sons in the business of retail vending of clothes in which line of business they have good experience. In order to substantiate his case the landlord examined himself and also got examined one of his sons. Certificates showing the experience of his son in retailing of clothes was also produced from two ex-employers of his son. The tenant defended the eviction petition alleging that the eviction petition is simply a ruse to evict him from the petition premises for renting it again for higher rent and the requirement of the sons' as pleaded is not true. The court below on an overall consideration of the oral and documentary evidence produced in the case, allowed the eviction petition. The order of eviction passed by the Court below is impugned herein.
3. I have heard the learned Counsels on both sides.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Kureshi submitted that the Court below erred in placing reliance on Ex. P. 1 the settlement recorded between the landlord and his brothers resulting in the division of the premises into three different parts. Mr. Kureshi submitted that an oral partition which is recorded on a piece of paper and attested by a few witnesses could not have been construed by the Court below as conclusive evidence of partition of the property between the landlord and his brothers as it does not provide the legal proof required in law for being acted on by the Courts. Reliance in this regard is also placed by him on the decision in Niranjan Lal Sharma (deceased) by L.Rs v. Ved Kumari and Anr., AIR 2003 NOC 123 (Del.), 2002 AIHC 3494 (Del.).
5. Mr. M.L. Dayananda Kumar, on the other hand, supported the impugned order.
6. The evidence on record conclusively establishes that the landlord has three sons, one of whom is in Middle East and two of them are staying with him. The landlord has spoken to the fact that for want of a shop premises his sons are not able to start the business of retail vending of clothes in which line of business they have sufficient experience. The petition premises is situate in a busy commercial area where several retail cloth shops are located and, therefore, the suitability of the premises to start the business of retail vending of clothes also cannot be disputed by the petitioner. Mr. Kureshi's contention is that the Court without any legal basis has assumed and accepted Ex. P. 1-as a piece of evidence substantiating the partition among the landlord and his two brothers and if this assumption is shown to be wrong and is removed from consideration, the case made out by the petitioner that the landlord has other suitable premises in his possession will have to be accepted and the need propounded by the landlord has to be rejected as not genuine. Reliance is placed by him on the decision in Niranjan Lal Sharma's case, supra, wherein a learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court, while appreciating the pleading of the landlady for bona fide need based on an oral partition, observed:
'Eviction -- Bona fide need -- Building in question was three storeyed building -- Landlady pleading that due to oral partition effected between her and her sons only ground portion had fallen to her share which was occupied by tenant -- No date of partition was on record -- Partition of property was unequal and appeared to have been done with a view to maintain the eviction petition against petitioner-tenant and to offer an excuse for allowing adjoining shop to be used by landlady's other sons for commercial purposes -- Plea of partition is sham and bogus plea -- In absence of partition, landlady remains joint owner of entire property --Bona fide need, not sustainable'.
(emphasis supplied)
A perusal of the underlined portion of the Headnote makes it obvious that the learned Single Judge formed the opinion that the partition is sham and bogus on noticing the unequal division of the property and the circumstance that the document was undated. The refusal to grant the relief was not merely based on these two factors. The Court refused the relief, mainly because the shop premises which was situate in a leading hardware market was being sought by the landlady for converting the shop into a kitchen. The learned Single Judge rejected the prayer for eviction on the ground that it is improbable and difficult to believe that a commercially exploitable shop premises having high rental value would be converted into a kitchen. It is a culmination of these factors that prompted the Court in Niranjan Lal's case, supra, to decline the relief. Coming back to the case on hand, none of these factors are present herein. Ex. P. 1 is not undated. The date mentioned in Ex. P. 1 is 15-12-1988. Ex. P. 1 has come into being several years before the filing of the petition. The division of the property also is quite equal in that three of the brothers get one shop each and some residential portion for living. More importantly, the premises is sought by the landlord for establishing his two sons in the business of retail sale of clothes and the shop premises is situate in a market area where predominantly shops dealing in retail sale of clothes are situate. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be faulted on the ground of improper appreciation of evidence. The fundamental question of requirement of the premises by the landlord if examined in the light of the facts borne out on record unerringly point to the requirement of the premises by the landlord for the purpose of settling his sons in business. When such requirement is made out by the landlord, there could be no impediment at all for the Court in granting the prayer for eviction.
7. Furthermore, this revision is required to be determined in accordance with the prevailing law. The Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 having come into force with effect from 31-12-2001, the provisions contained therein alone will have a bearing on the outcome of these proceedings. The provision in the present Act which corresponds to Section 21(1)(h) of the repealed Act is Section 27(2)(r) which reads:
'27. Protection of tenants against eviction.--(1) 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.--
XXX XXX XXXXXX XXX XXX (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 whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable accommodation:
Provided that where the landlord has acquired the premises by transfer, no application for the recovery of possession of such premises shall lie under this clause unless a period of one year has elapsed from the date of the acquisition.
Explanation I.--For the purposes of this clause and Sections 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;
(ii) premises let for a particular use may be required by the landlord for a different use if such use is permissible under law.
Explanation II.--For the purposes of this clause and Sections 28 to 31 an occupation by the landlord of any part of a building of which any premises let out by him forms a part shall not disentitle him to recover the possession of such premises'.
It is obvious on a close scrutiny of the above provision that the standard of proof required to be established by a landlord seeking recovery of possession of the tenanted premises has been drastically whittled down by doing away with the necessity of proving the bona fide and reasonableness of the need propounded by him. In the absence of such necessity and the presumption that this Court shall have to draw as to the genuineness of such need in terms of Explanation I(i), given the facts and circumstances obtaining in the case, I find absolutely no ground at all to interfere with the impugned order of the Court as in the present legal situation the landlord would, undoubtedly, be entitled to the relief sought by him.
8. In the result, the revision petition is dismissed. The petitioner-tenant is granted two months time to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the premises in question to the respondent-landlord.