ORDER
Chidananda Ullal, J.
1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment and decree in Revision (Rent) No. 390 of 1989, dated 23-6-1999 passed by the Second Additional District Judge, Dakshina Kannada District, Mangalore, in passing whereof, the District Judge while dismissing the said revision petition held that there was no relationship of tenancy between the respondent-landlords and petitioner-tenants and the tenancy right in respect of the non-residential premises is not a heritable right.
2. It is brought to the notice of the Court that the impugned order passed by the learned District Judge hereunder challenged is liable to be set aside on the short point that the same is opposed to the latest decision of the Supreme Court in Gantusa H. Baddi (dead) by L.Rs v Meerabai G. Pai and Others, for in the said decision, the Supreme Court held that the tenancy right in respect of non-residential premises is a heritable right.
3. In para 8 thereof, the Supreme Court held as hereunder:
“8. The provisions of the Karnataka Rent Control Act directly came up for consideration before a Bench of this Court in the case of Vishnu Narayan Gadskari (dead) by L.Rs v Paralal Baladev Uza and Others . Relying upon the aforesaid Constitution Bench decision and bearing in mind the definition of “tenant” in Section 3(r) of the Karnataka Act, the Court held that the tenant continues to have an estate or interest in the tenanted premises and the tenancy rights both in respect of residential premises and commercial premises are heritable. In the latter decision in Venkatesh Thimmaiah Gurjalkar v S.S. Hawaldar, neither the decision of the Constitution Bench, referred to supra, has been noticed nor the earlier two Judge Bench decision of this Court on the provisions of the Karnataka Act has been noticed and relying upon the decision of the Karnataka High Court, without any analysis of the provisions of the Act, the conclusion of the forums below that the premises in question being non-residential, the right of tenancy therein is not heritable has been upheld. In view of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench as well as the earlier decision of this Court in Vishnu Narayan Gadskari’s case, supra, we have no hesitation to hold that the latter decision in Venkatesh Thimmaiah’s case, supra, has not been correctly decided. In the absence of any contrary provisions in the Act, it must be held that the tenancy in respect of a non-residential premises under the Karnataka Rent Control Act is heritable. The conclusion of the High Court to the contrary, therefore, cannot be sustained”.
4. The learned Counsel tor the respondent 1, however, supported the impugned order passed by the learned District Judge on the ground that at that point of time of passing the impugned order the law that was holding the field was otherwise. The learned Counsel however fairly conceded that, that law came to be settled by the judgment of the three Judges Larger Bench of the Supreme Court to set at rest the conflicting judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Venkatesh Thimmaiah, supra and in the case of Vishnu Narayan Gadskari, supra.
5. In following the above decision of the Apex Court, I pass the following:
The impugned order dated 23-6-1999 passed by the learned District Judge in Revision (Rent) Petition No. 390 of 1989 stands set aside.
6. The matter stands remitted to the learned District Judge with a direction to dispose of the revision petition in question bearing in mind the above decision of the three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court.
7. In view of the circumstances that the matter is of the year 1989, the learned District Judge is also directed to the dispose of the same within a timeframe of three months from the date of communication of this order.
8. The instant revision petition, therefore succeeds and accordingly stands allowed in the above terms.