Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 1440-1441 of 2004
PETITIONER:
M/s K. Ganesh Shet
RESPONDENT:
Sri A.K.Jayarama Sheka & Ors.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 27/08/2004
BENCH:
CJI, G.P. Mathur & C.K. Thakker
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
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been repealed and replaced by the Karnataka Rent Control Act,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
Vs. G.V. Srinivasa Murthy (Civil Appeal No.6296 of 1998 decided
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 in A.S.
Sulochana Vs. C. Dharmalingam (1987) 1 SCC 180 according to
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,
stands overruled. (See Parvinder Singh Vs. Renu Gautam and
Ors. \026 (2004) 4 SCC 794). The sub-tenancy was created in 1978
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
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 and sub-tenants.