27 August 2004
Supreme Court
Download

K. GANESH SHET Vs A.K. JAYARAMA SHEKA .

Bench: CJI,G.P. MATHUR,C.K. THAKKER
Case number: C.A. No.-001440-001441 / 2004
Diary number: 11103 / 2001


1

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       During the pendency of these appeals, the Act of 1961 has  been repealed and replaced by the Karnataka Rent Control Act,  1999 with effect from 31.12.1999.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

2

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.