9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the respondent-tenant is an assignee of the lease in contravention of Section 21(1)(f) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act without the landlord's written consent and is thus liable for eviction. 2. Whether the assignment of the lease by the original tenant to the respondent was made with the landlord's written consent. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Whether the respondent-tenant is an assignee of the lease in contravention of Section 21(1)(f) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act without the landlord's written consent and is thus liable for eviction. The premises in question were leased to ESSO Eastern Inc. under a registered lease deed dated 17-7-1965 for a period of five years, with an option for renewal. Before the lease expired, the ESSO (Acquisition of Undertakings in India) Act, 1974 (Act No. 4/1974) came into force, transferring all of ESSO's properties, including leasehold rights, to the Central Government. The Central Government then transferred these rights to Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (HPCL). The petitioner contended that this transfer amounted to an assignment of the lease without the landlord's consent, falling within the mischief of Section 21(1)(f) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act. However, the court determined that the transfer of ESSO's rights to the Central Government and subsequently to HPCL was a legislative act, not an assignment or subletting by the tenant. The court emphasized that the Parliament has the power to modify, annul, and substitute contracts, and such legislative substitution does not constitute an assignment or subletting under Section 21(1)(f). The court referenced Sections 3, 4, and 5 of Act No. 4/1974, which collectively indicate that the Central Government and subsequently HPCL were legally substituted for ESSO, making HPCL the deemed original lessee. The court concluded that there was no act of subletting or assignment by the tenant, as the changes were effected by law, not by the tenant's actions. Therefore, Section 21(1)(f) was not applicable. Issue 2: Whether the assignment of the lease by the original tenant to the respondent was made with the landlord's written consent. Clause 4(a) of the lease deed allowed the tenant to sub-let or license the premises to any local dealer or agent without the landlord's consent. The court interpreted this clause broadly, stating that it did not restrict the tenant's authority to sub-let or license the premises to entities other than local dealers or agents. The court held that the lease deed's provision permitting sub-letting or licensing without the landlord's consent was sufficient to take the case out of the purview of Section 23 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act. The court further noted that even if the transfer of ESSO's rights to HPCL were considered sub-letting, it was permitted by the lease deed itself. Therefore, the case did not fall within the mischief of Section 23, which only prohibits sub-letting or assignment without the landlord's consent. Conclusion: The court dismissed the Civil Revision Petition, holding that the legislative substitution of ESSO with HPCL did not constitute an assignment or sub-letting under Section 21(1)(f) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act. Additionally, the lease deed's provisions allowed sub-letting without the landlord's consent, rendering Section 23 inapplicable.
|
