Bona Fide Need, Alternative Premises and the Rent Controller's Jurisdiction
In 2010, R let a 900 sq ft shop in a notified Bengaluru area to T at Rs 12,000 per month. The written lease was for 11 months and continued by holding over. In June 2023, R filed an eviction petition before the Rent Controller under Section 21(1)(h) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, saying his son, a physiotherapist, needs the shop to start a clinic. T objected: (i) the civil court alone has jurisdiction because rent exceeds Rs 3,500; (ii) R owns a vacant 700 sq ft shop in the same building, though it is let to a stationery dealer; (iii) R first thought of the clinic in 2016 and has delayed; (iv) T has regularly paid rent but not the 10% hike demanded. The Rent Controller dismissed the petition, holding delay fatal and the alternative shop suitable. R challenges the order. The record shows the son registered his clinic plan in 2023, the other shop is under a lease till 2026, and T runs a mobile repair shop with no other premises.
1. Was the Rent Controller right to hold that the civil court had jurisdiction because the monthly rent exceeds Rs 3,500? Decide with reasons.
Read the worked answer
No. The objection confuses the older rent-control regime with the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999. In a notified area, the Rent Controller is the designated authority for eviction, and the 1999 Act does not retain the old Rs 3,500 ceiling as a test of jurisdiction. Section 50 of the Act bars civil courts from entertaining eviction disputes that fall within the Controller's jurisdiction. The shop is in a notified Bengaluru area, is not shown to be exempted, and the petition is based on a statutory ground. The civil court therefore cannot entertain the eviction petition merely because the agreed rent is Rs 12,000. The preliminary objection fails. The appellate authority should record that the Controller had jurisdiction and proceed to the merits; the dismissal cannot be sustained on this ground.
2. How should the appellate authority assess bona fide requirement and comparative hardship under Section 21(1)(h) in light of the delay and the other shop?
Read the worked answer
Bona fide requirement under Section 21(1)(h) is not proved by a bare assertion of desire. The landlord must show a genuine, present and reasonable need, and the court must compare the hardship that eviction would cause to the tenant with the hardship of refusing relief to the landlord. Here the son's clinic plan in 2023 and the absence of any suitable vacant premises support a present need. The other shop is not available: it is under a lease until 2026, and a landlord is not normally required to break an existing lease or provide a shop that is legally occupied. Delay between 2016 and 2023 is relevant because it may show that the need is not genuine or that the landlord has other accommodation. But delay is not an absolute bar if the need subsists and is explained. The Controller treated delay as fatal without analysing whether the son's requirement had crystallised. The Controller also treated a leased shop as vacant, which is perverse. On comparative hardship, the tenant's inability to find alternative premises is a factor, but it cannot by itself defeat a genuine landlord need. The proper course is to set aside the dismissal and either decide on the evidence or remit for a fresh finding on comparative hardship; the appellate court should not dismiss merely because of the earlier delay.
3. What order should be passed on the alleged 10% rent hike and the tenant's payment of rent at the old rate?
Read the worked answer
The 10% hike cannot be unilaterally imposed. The tenant's obligation is to pay the agreed rent; a demand for an increase requires either a contract or a lawful determination of standard rent. The eviction petition is under Section 21(1)(h), not for default in payment. Non-payment of an unilaterally demanded hike is not a ground for eviction. If the tenant is in arrears of the agreed rent, the landlord may pursue the statutory remedy for arrears, but that does not decide the bona fide need petition. The order should clarify that eviction, if allowed, is not based on the alleged 10% arrears; any arrears of agreed rent can be recovered separately.