1988 (3) TMI 461 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Default in payment of rent.
2. Erection of a permanent structure without consent.
3. Unlawful sub-letting of the premises.
4. Requirement of the premises for personal use and occupation.
5. Greater hardship caused by eviction.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Default in Payment of Rent:
The Court below held that the original tenant, Khader Sheriff, did not pay the arrears of rent within two months of service of notice (Ex.P-4). However, the High Court found that the notice Ex.P-4 did not meet the requirements of Clause (a) of Section 21(1) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961. The notice was not signed by the Advocate or any of the landlords and did not specifically demand payment of arrears by each landlord according to their shares. Therefore, the order of eviction under Clause (a) was not sustainable due to the lack of proper notice.

2. Erection of a Permanent Structure Without Consent:
The Court below found that Khader Sheriff had erected permanent structures, including sinking a well, in violation of the lease terms. However, the High Court noted that the landlords' petition only mentioned the well as the permanent structure and did not provide evidence of any other permanent structures. The High Court concluded that digging a well does not constitute erecting a permanent structure as defined under the Act. Therefore, the order of eviction under Clause (c) was not sustainable.

3. Unlawful Sub-letting of the Premises:
The Court below held that part of the premises had been sub-let to D. Jayaram, and Khader Sheriff had transferred his leasehold rights to A.R. Sheriff and subsequently to Basha Baig. The High Court found that the landlords' petition did not specify which part of the premises was sub-let and did not provide sufficient evidence to support the claim. The High Court also noted that the sub-letting of sheds erected by the tenant on the leased open land does not attract the provisions of Clause (f). Therefore, the order of eviction under Clause (f) was not sustainable.

4. Requirement of the Premises for Personal Use and Occupation:
The Court below held that the premises were required by the landlords for personal use and occupation, including the construction of an industrial shed and residential houses. However, the High Court found that the landlords did not provide detailed pleadings about their plans, preparedness, or capacity to back up the proposed construction. The High Court emphasized the need for detailed pleadings to allow the tenant to meet the landlord's case and for the Court to form an opinion on the bona fides and reasonableness of the requirement. Therefore, the order of eviction under Clause (h) was not sustainable.

5. Greater Hardship Caused by Eviction:
The Court below considered the hardship to the tenant, who employed 40 workers, and granted four months to vacate the premises. However, since the High Court found the orders of eviction under Clauses (a), (c), (f), and (h) unsustainable, the issue of greater hardship did not alter the final decision.

Conclusion:
The High Court allowed the revision, setting aside the order of eviction on all grounds. The Court emphasized the importance of proper notice, detailed pleadings, and sufficient evidence to support claims for eviction under the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961.