As numbered herein earlier, initially, the original petition for eviction was filed only under Section 27 2 r read with Section 27 2 j of the Act, out of which the ground under Section 27 2 j of the Act was negatived and eviction was ordered only on the ground of bonafide requirement of the said shop under Section 27 2 r of the Act, against which, the revision was moved in the High Court, which also affirmed the order of the learned Judge of the Small Causes Court, Bangalore.
The case of the landlord respondent was that he filed the eviction petition against the appellant under Section 27 2 r of the Act on the ground that he wanted to start a stationary business in the said shop with the assistance of his younger son so as to enable him to earn his livelihood and the appellant, being a retired engineer in the Irrigation Department and a senior citizen, the eviction petition should be allowed in his favour.
So far as the ground under Section 27 2 r of the Act was companycerned, the same was allowed and eviction was directed, but the ground under Section 27 2 j of the Act was, however, rejected and the appellant was directed to vacate the said shop within three months from the date of passing of the order of eviction, which was passed on 16th of September, 2006.
The respondent landlord herein filed an eviction petition under Section 27 2 r read with Section 27 2 j of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 in short, the Act against the appellant for eviction in respect of a portion of shop No.
Feeling aggrieved by this order of the High Court affirming the order of eviction passed by the Small Causes Court, this Special Leave Petition was filed by the appellant in this Court which, on grant of leave, was heard in presence of the learned companynsel for the parties.
196/2003, inter alia on the ground that the respondent required the said shop for his own use and occupation and for starting a business for his son who was handicapped.
The challenge to the aforesaid order of the Small Causes Court Judge, directing the eviction was that the appellant was and or is in possession of reasonable, suitable accommodation as he is the owner of shopping malls and other 10 shops in the area in question.
575, 11th Main, 5th Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore 41, measuring 12 feet East to West and 8 North to South hereinafter referred to as the said shop .
Feeling aggrieved by the order of the learned Judge of the Small Causes Court, Bangalore, the High Court was moved in revision by the appellant.
The younger son, for whom the said shop was required, was is a handicapped person.
TARUN CHATTERJEE, J Leave granted.
