A written statement was filed by the appellant in which the allegations made in the eviction petition were denied and it was stated that the respondent was number entitled to evict the appellant as she did number require the suit premises for her bona fide use and occupation.
It is this order of the High Court, which is number under challenge in this companyrt by way of a special leave petition in respect of which leave has already been granted.
It was further alleged in the written statement that since the respondent was number the sole owner of the suit premises, the eviction petition filed at her instance only was number maintainable and therefore, the same was liable to be dismissed.
100, Surveyor Street, Bangalore 4 in short the suit premises under Section 27 2 r read with Section 31 of the Karnataka Rent Act in short the Act on the ground that since the suit premises is old and in a dilapidated companydition, the same was required to be demolished in order to put up a new companystruction and that the respondent required the suit premises for use and occupation by herself and her children after demolition and reconstruction of the same as she and her children were staying in her father in laws house.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Chief Judge of the Small Causes Court at Bangalore, the respondent filed a revision petition before the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore being H.R.R.P No.
It was also alleged that the companydition of the suit premises was number so dilapidated for which demolition and reconstruction was necessary.
366 of 2004.
Heard the learned companynsel for the parties and examined the impugned order of the High Court as well as the order of the Small Causes Court and the other materials on record.
The Chief Judge of the Small Causes Court, Bangalore by his order dated 1st of April, 2004 dismissed the eviction petition of the respondent.
233 of 2002 was filed before the Chief Judge, Small Causes Court, Bangalore for eviction of the appellant from the residential premises bearing No.
TARUN CHATTERJEE, J. Leave granted.
The High Court by its order dated 19th of October, 2006, had set aside the order of the Chief Judge of the Small Causes Court thereby allowing the revision petition and directing eviction of the appellant from the suit premises but granted six months time to vacate and handover the possession of the same to the respondent.
An eviction petition being HRC No.
