M/S K. Ganesh Shet Vs. Sri
A.K.Jayarama Sheka & Ors  Insc 500 (27 August 2004)
CJI, G.P. Mathur & C.K.
Thakker R.C. Lahoti, CJI
Proceedings for eviction of tenant on the ground available
under Section 21(1)(f) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter,
the Act for short) were initiated. The Trial Court dismissed the claim for
eviction. The landlord preferred revision before the Court of District Judge
which was allowed and the tenant and the sub-tenants were directed to be
evicted. The two sub- tenants preferred revisions in the High Court. The High
Court has upheld the finding of fact recorded by the District Judge that the
premises were sub-let without the consent of the landlord.
However, still the High Court has granted relief to the sub-tenants and
denied relief of eviction to the landlord. The High Court has formed an opinion
that in spite of the sub-tenants having been illegally inducted into the
premises, the original tenant had died and the sub-tenants were holding under
the legal representatives of the original tenant and the sub-tenants deserved
to be shown mercy. The High Court directed the rent which was being paid by the
sub-tenants at the rate of Rs.600/- per month to be enhanced to Rs.1000/- per
month and that too directly to the landlord bypassing the tenant and having
done so directed the claim for eviction to be dismissed. Consequently, these
two appeals by special leave have been filed by the landlord.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties we are satisfied that the
judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained.
During the pendency of these appeals, the Act of 1961 has been repealed and
replaced by the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1999 with effect from 31.12.1999.
Dealing with Section 70 of the New Act we have today held in M/s Mahendra Saree
Emporium on August 27, 2004) that these appeals shall not abate and shall be
heard and decided as if the 1999 Act was not passed.
The sole question which arises for decision in these appeals is whether the
High Court was justified in refusing to evict the tenant and the sub-tenants
simply because the original tenant had died and the sub-tenants deserved to be
treated with mercy. The High Court drew support from the decision of this Court
which if the sub-tenancy was created by a tenant and the tenant had died
then the legal heirs of the tenant and the sub-tenants could not be evicted
"for the sin committed by the deceased tenant". The view of the law
so taken in A.S. Sulochana's case, Ors. (2004) 4 SCC 794). The sub-tenancy was
created in 1978 without the consent of the tenant. The finding as to creation
of sub-tenancy has been recorded by the learned District Judge on appreciation
of evidence within his jurisdiction and has been upheld by the High Court. We
find no reason to interfere with that finding of fact. The legal consequences
must therefore follow. The landlord has successfully made out a ground for
eviction and the tenant must be evicted along with the sub-tenants.
The appeals are allowed. The judgment of the High Court is set aside and
instead that of the District Judge is restored.
However, the decree for eviction shall remain suspended for a period of four
months from today subject to the tenant and the sub- tenants filing the usual
undertaking within a period of four weeks from today in the Executing Court.
The appellant shall be entitled to costs throughout from the respondent-tenant