IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 25?" DAY OF' AUGUST 2008
BEFORE
g
THE momma MRKJUSTICE SUB}-{ASH B.ADI_ ~. _
BETWEEN:
Smt. Dev
Aged about 65 years,
"He. Late T. K. Parameshwaran _
H0315, Nagarathpet ' " V V_
BANGALORE'-560 053. " TPMITIONER
(By Sri. Shyam Koundinyaa; am1 "
Sxi Vinay Pan} 1*. K., Advs.)"-- ~ %% ;
AND: ~ I'; V
Sri- Natarajan ~ .
Aged aboutV'48._yeax*sVV.'H ,
S/0. Munegcwdm ' .
No.17, Annaya-pvpa laiie '
'Nagarathpet C1t§;§s,"Tig.-.§=lar;_J»cf
BANGAI,g:)RE¢S60 Gag.
.....
VNo.915. Nagarathpet
BANc;Auore5-’56@AV¢53. .. RESPONDENT
firhis” H}R.R.p. is filed under Section 45(1) of Karnataka
Aat against the order dated 05.01.2006 passed in
HRC’-.’F¢o._S2’54/2004 on the file of the II Add]. Small Causes judge,
Bsangalom, Dismissing the, petition U] a.2’7(2)(i)(1j and 31 of KR
‘ ‘:”x¢I…_ff5r evictirm.
This Revision Petition coming on for Hearing this day, the
made the follewingz
-3-
trial court dismissed the eviction petition only on the ground
that, the petitione:r’s husband being. the lessee, he
within the definition of the ‘landlord’ and the is
not maintainahle. In this regard. the trial fl
definitions of Section 3(1)) and (13 of T
Act and held that, the definitzion
3 clause {h} of the Rent Control
However, the word is’ in the
definition of ‘landlord’ undet (is) of the Act. On
the interpretation’ot’VL;t&1e in both the Acts,
the trial couitt cannot be a landlord
within §f’*1;a:§td1o;d*.
4. the petitioner submitted that,
Sectiog .3 of the does not omit the sub-tenants.
‘V V”PE’91Ie–h'{‘ fiecfifln 3’ (6) does not refer to tenant of
an incfusive definition. He referred to the
deftrzition of under Section 3 clause (11) of the Act and
that, the tenant includes the sub-tenants and further
that. reading of both the definitions dearly indicates
the landloni includes the tenant of the sub-tenant. in this
‘V ‘ he also Iefened to Section 21(1)(h) of the Karnataka Rent
Control Act and submitteé that, the explanation under Section
21(4) specifically excludes a rent-farmer or rent-collector or
-4.
estate-manager for the purpose of eviction of tenants under
clause (11) of Section 21(1) of the Karnataka Rent Conuolfiet He
further submitteti that by reading of these pmtdsitattsgj
that. the definition of ‘1anciIo1ti’11n¢;ier Section 2(a)-.§r fhé; Adi
to be read in consonanoe with the of iijniieru ‘ j
Section 3(n) of the Act and harmoniotts.
provisions read with Section 27 ekéhrde sub?’ Lt
lessee, who has power to –3uhx:titted that,
for the purpose of -si1E_>§§.e$§ee;,’:”ttte’».1essee is landlord
and it cannotbe mad othezvvisef t K V
5. Thciugit”Vthe”–V..xt§p§z~xt£ie1ijt is ‘served in th1s’ revision
petition
6. Tlieenly ‘ 5 for consideration is,
19 the teseee of sub-lessee, who has right
‘-t¢§”:Iea3se,’vr.i§ Viamiiyord of the sub-lessee or not, within
‘ pf Section 3(3) of the Kamaiczka Rent Act
_
tvhieh me not in dispute in this case are that, the
K x V a lessee. The lessor is one Nageshwara temp}e trust
A Nagesixwara tempie mm had filed H.R.C.No.1402/1990
T eegjnagr section 21(1)(1) and (9) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act
3 éxgainst the petitioner, interalia, aiieging that the petitioner herein
hm sublet the premises, the said HRC came to be dismissed with
-5.
an observation that, the petitioner herein though is a lessee has a
right to sublease. The relationship between the petitioner and
the respondent as a lessee and sub-lessee is not contested by the
respondent and it has also come on record that, the le.ssts_* Qf the
petitioner had failed to prove that the sub-lease to eje’
by the petitioner is in violation of pf
Kaxnataka Rent Control Act. These £19 ix seine ‘
petitioner – lessee has a right to_snb-lease ‘the 3
3. section 3 clause (11) orVAtheiA’;:areetake ‘fiventfionnnl Act
defines ‘landloxd’ as underi T –
(h) “1am:i”Isrd’:”z(zeans–.diz;y«–pérso;%z who is for the time
he-erfiilfed ir)”fe;-naive, rent in respect of
any p1’em’zs’e=_2s_a whethércn _’ his own account or on
mxxiuru’, or for the berwfii of any other
person, or as mestes, “gieardizm er receiver fer any
other péefsei-an or. whd ugiiuld so receive the rent or be
enfitied 16 receive the rent if the premsses were let to a
tenafli; and any person not being a tenant
“who?-._from.. time to time derives title under a landlord;
A figrthér includes in r_e§g_gcf of _}_;i_§ sglgtermm g
V sub-let am; prsnusflews’
V. 5 ‘(underlined by me)
of ‘tenant’ as defined under Section am of the said
” _’Aet”1esds as under:
5 fr) ‘tenant’ means any person by whom or on
whose account rent is payabie for a premises and
includes the surviving spouse or my son or
daughter or father or rrwther of a deceased tenant
who had been living with the termtnt in the
pnav:m’sac as a nwmbor Q)’ the tananfiiaz family upta
-5-
to the death of the tenant and a person oontim.n’ng
in possession qfler the termination of the tenancy
in his favour, but does not include a person
placed in occupation of £1 premises by its tenant
or a. person to whom the collection of rents orfees , ~
in a public market, car’!-stand or slaughter :we2ée –« ‘-
or of rents for shops has been fimned rr.-gt” o:r~-_ “‘ ”
leased by a Iooai authority.’ –~ .– _
Under the Karnataka Rent Act 199§;eV A’
under Section 3(c), which made .
(e) ‘landlord’ cc person” for
being is receiving or ‘is~V.err1z’€?ed to reoeiape, the rent
of any premises, whefher on he eu_m.»acxx3unt or
on account of or on behalf q’f’o§’fer_Vt’h.ef~beitefii of
any other person in trustee, or
receiver for tray’ -other person uzhofweuld so
receive the–._re;it ._or.to he en.t£!ied mwfemirye the
rent, if the fez in éz«_!en’ant.”
The Vvdsfizicd under Section 3(11), which
reads as under, ‘ . V’ ‘
(nj ‘tenant’ any persen by whom or on
~ wfwee or behalf the rent of any
p1*e2e;’ses, is or but for a special oonirad
_ would yayabfe, and 1nc.’udm,-
. (1) I :1′ sub-tenant;
” fit) “‘ ‘ any person continuing in possession
” ‘i. afler the ierminaiton cf his tenancy,
but does not mchzde any person to
whom a licence as defined in Sedion
52 of the Indian Easements Ac¢,1832
(Central Act 5 of 1882) has been
granted.’
9. The eicfimtloza of ‘tenant’ under Section 3(n) of the Act
includes the sub-tenant. The definition of the ‘landlord’ is not
-7.
restricted only to the owner of the piemkism, but also the person,
who for the time being. is receiving or who is entitled to
the tent of any premises. It is not in dispute that. _
herein is mceiving the rent of the premises from _:
The Karnataka Rent Contno1Act
eviction. for leasing of bufldings. ‘V
lodging. housing and certain ” the
tenant of a sub-tenant as 51’ onlfreetriction
imposed on xentvoollcctors at managers,
from seeking 21(1)(h) of the
iiameiaka Rent eeeteeieee they were included in
the definition
10. ‘r1ie« is intended to balance the
interest of and tenant and also stimulates
i is given only in respect orcermin
1i;iie iiet. Tenants of residential house of which the
‘.l;’s.3.500/– per month in an area covered under
Municipal Corporation Act and Rs.2,.OO0[~ in
of any other ama and commemial building having an area
_1_”nothe§£eeeding 14 square meters, were only protected. Under the
V. V — ‘4 Rent Control Act, larger protection and contzol was
‘provided to the tenants. The landIord’s right is to seek eviction
was restricted. However. the Karnataka Rent Act liberalized the
. V. ‘ iwweinx “cereal ca
-3.
rights of the landloxds, the protection of the tenants from eviction
was also restricted, such as, if the buikfling is not 15
years old, 115111: of residential premises is less ‘or
Rs.2,000/– per month, as the case may be.
to seek eviction of tenant is made V
the interest of the landlord and»—- _’»f’he defitfiittiontof
includes the sub-tenant. the ham} definition
of tenant and landlord . ..elaus–.e”(e)x and in) of
Section 3 of the Act -ttllzet *__i:i.:1e1ude the lessee,
who has right _tg.fl1°f€xse the meaning of
definition of of eviction of the sub-
lessee. (i&)’.of’t}}4ze Act reads as under:
227;, against eaictioyw (1)
Notuzithgstandiitg to the contrary contained in
any other lazy or ovmiiraci, no order or decree for the
regxrvery of possession of any premises shall be made by
grief Court, Disfiic1..Ji1dge or High Court in favour cg’ the
tenant, save as provided in sub-
‘ V ‘eectiion {Z}; V ., _
envisaged to protect the tenants against
bntif the landiezd fulfills the requixetnent of subsection
entitled for eviction of the tenant. If Section 27 sub-
‘ (1) is mad fin consonance with the definition of ‘latldloxwd’
V _u_:e.nd ‘tenant’, it do indicate that the landlord can evict the tenant
only if he fulfills the requirement under ciauses of Section 2. If
the subwtenont. who is tenant. as defined under Section 3(n} of
-9.
the Act is to be evicted, necessarily for a sub~te-nant, the tenant of
sub–tenant would come Within the meaning of
intention and the purpose of the legislation is
right of tenant of sub-tenant nude; the «.
Construction of provisions must slfba-serve. fvtlie eltfie ‘
Act The fact that the definition e’of_’1an£I1o_§d’ in ,
excludes the lessee of s11b–1essec tl 1e ‘landloni’.
When the definition theH pVIA’evisions of
Karnataka Rent Canto} Ac; of sub-tenant as
landlord, it heia gag; the:::ieeiaaf;1£,Tb’f su.h~teI1a11t is not
landloxd Rent Act. In my
opinion, in the matter of
intcxpmteflcfiz of ef ‘landknd’ and rejecting the
petition of tI1’e”‘peti:io_z’;e1′ o_1»’1′ ground that, she is not a landlord
” 3 clause (e) of the Act, if the lessee.
and collect rent from the subdessee, such
as an empty formality without having
seek evicfion. Since, the trial court has not
the matter on merit, I feel that the matter requixes
on the question of requirement under Section
I A e ee1eei.V27(‘2)(i) and (:3 of the Act.
Accordingly. the Revision Pcfition is allowed. The order of
the trial court is set aside. The matter is remitted to the trial
I
.. H}…
court to consider the case of the petitioner under _27(2)(i)
and (r) of the Act. The trial court is directed to the
eviction petition as early as possibk. u u H” is «
KNM/-