TMI Blog2001 (8) TMI 1393X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he lessee Nagaonkar aforesaid, assigned the lease in favour of Ramdas Vithaldas Darbar for a sum of ₹ 8,500/- The original parties to the agreements have all died and their heirs have stepped into their shoes and they are parties to the present proceedings. In the year 1986 the lessors served a notice to the lessees calling upon them to vacate the premises on the ground that the lessees did not pay rents for the period 1.3.85 to 31.3.86 and that the property was also bona fide required for their occupation. Reply to the notice is said to have been sent by the lessees denying default in payment as alleged and asserted inter alia that the lessors had no right to terminate the lease in view of the 99 years fixed term lease under the agreement. Thereafter, however, the lessors filed an application under Section 21(1)(h) and 21 (1)(p) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act 1961 on the ground that the premises were bona fide required by them for starting their own business. The lessees contested the petition on the ground that the fixed term lease was subsisting which expires only on 29.2.2004. It was also pleaded that in fact it was a perpetual lease which could not be terminated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... avour will be to show that the Karnataka Rent Control Act would not apply even for termination of a fixed term subsisting lease. Therefore, no submissions have been made before us to show that the lease is a perpetual lease. We would, therefore, proceed to examine the other question relating to applicability of Section 21 (1)(h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act to a subsisting fixed term contractual lease, as in the case in hand. While dealing with the aforesaid question, the High Court has relied upon a Full Bench decision of the Karnataka High Court reported in AIR 1997 Karnataka 311 M/s. Bombay Tyres International Ltd. versus K.S. Prakash, where it has been held that a proceeding for eviction under Section 21 of Karnataka Rent Control Act would be maintainable notwithstanding the fact that the lease under which tenant enjoys possession is an unexpired term lease. The relevant paragraph from the Full Bench decision aforesaid, is quoted below: In view of what is stated above, we are clearly of the opinion that the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Sri Ramakrishna Theatres case ILR (1992) Kant 1296: (AIR 1993 Kant 90), is no longer good law in the light of the deci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s case. It is to the effect that the provisions of the Rent Control Act would apply de hors the contract. When the Supreme Court has laid down the law to that effect, this Court has necessarily to follow the same and we do so. This necessarily leads us to see and find out the proposition of law as laid down in the case of Dhanapal Chettiar (Supra). It is a decision by a Bench of Seven Judges. The facts being that the land-lady moved an application for eviction of her tenant under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Rent Act on the ground of her personal need. The petition was dismissed. On appeal, though her case of bona fide requirement was upheld but eviction was refused due to lack of notice to quit in accordance with law. The High Court dealing with the matter in revision, held that notice to quit under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was not necessary for seeking an eviction of a tenant under the provisions of the Rent Act. The question therefore, as was under consideration before this Court is mentioned in Para 1 of the judgment itself which is quoted below:- as to whether in order to get a decree or order for eviction against a tenant under any State Rent Control ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... exceeding one year, or reserving a y early rent, can be made only by a registered instrument. None of the State Rent Acts has abrogated or affected this provision. (emphasis supplied) As a matter of fact the question of curtailment of fixed term contractual lease was not involved in the case of Dhanapal Chettiar (supra). It has no where been held that by virtue of the provisions of the Rent Act the contract of term lease is completely obliterated in all respects. The effect of Rent Act on tenancy under contract has been considered only to a limited extent confining it to the necessity of giving notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. Next we may consider the decision in the case of Sri Lakshmi Venkateshwara Enterprises (supra) It was a case relating to a term lease of 32 years. In paragraph 5 it has been observed as follows: This Court in V. Dhanapal Chettiar v. Yesodai Ammal categorically laid down that contractual tenancy will lose its significance in view of the Rent Control Act. In that case, even the notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was held to be a surplusage. It is therefore urged that if a landlord could found an action ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ver and above as provided. The whole contract or other conditions not related to eviction or grounds of eviction shall not be affected. So far a fixed term lease is concerned, it shall be affected only to the extent that even after expiry of period of the lease the possession cannot be obtained by the lessor unless one or more of the grounds contained in Section 21 of the Act are available for eviction of the tenant. There is nothing to indicate nor it has been held in any case that in view of Section 21 of the Karnataka Rent Act a contract of fixed term tenancy stands obliterated in totality. As indicated in the earlier part of this judgment in the case of Dhanapal Chettiar it has been observed in Paragraph 5 that none of the State Rent Acts have abrogated or affected the provisions of Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act which provides for lease of immovable property from year to year or for a term more than a year or reserving a yearly rent. As indicated earlier, the Proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Karnataka Rent Act limits the grounds on which landlord can seek eviction of a tenant. Nothing has been indicated by reasons of which it can be concluded that a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
