VISHRAM KRISHNA ANVEKAR Vs. VENKATESH VITHALRAO KAMATH
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
VISHRAM KRISHNA ANVEKAR
VENKATESH VITHALRAO KAMATH
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.)The petitioner who was the 2nd defendant in the original Court and
was impleaded as a sub-tenant under the 1st defendant, the principal tenant
who was sought to be evicted by the respondents under the provisions
of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947
hereinafter referred to as the Bombay Rent Act. The landlords sought
eviction on three grounds : (1) Default in the payment of rent; (2) bona fide
personal requirement; and (3) unlawful subletting. During the pendency
of the matter before the trial Court, the 1st defendant admitted
default on his part in payment of rent from 6-2-1957 onwards and submitted
to a decree for eviction by consent. It would appear that he actually gave
up possession on 9-8-1963. Thereafter the proceedings were continued only
against the 2nd defendant. The claim of bona fide requirement was held
against the plaintiffs. So far as subletting was concerned, the trial Court
held that in view of S.61 of the Mysore Rent Control Act, 1961 the subletting
cannot be regarded as unlawful at all and that therefore the sub-tenant
upon the eviction of the main tenant must be held to have become a statutory
tenant for whose eviction the landlords were referred to such other
separate proceedings as they may be advised to take.
(2.)Upon appeal by the landlords, the District Judge has held that S.61
can be depended upon by a sub-tenant to retain possession only in cases
where the main tenancy was sought to be put an end to on the ground
of unlawful subletting, but that if as in this case the main tenant was
evicted on the ground of default of rent and compliance with all the provisions
of S.12 of the Bombay Rent Act, the sub-tenant cannot claim the
right to remain in possession any longer.
(3.)In this revision petition against the appellate order directing his eviction,
the point strongly pressed by Mr. Guttal on behalf of the petitioner
is that the lower appellate Court's view of the availability of the protection
under S.61 to him is erroneous.
Now S.61 of the Mysore Rent Control Act reads as follows :
"Notwithstanding anything contained in any judgment, decree or
order of a Court or any contract, the bar against sub-letting, assignment
or transfer of premises contained in S.15 of the Bombay Rents,
Hotel and Lodging Houses Rates Control Act, 1947 (Bombay Act LVII
of 1947) as in force before the commencement of this Act, or in any
contract, shall, in respect of such sub-lessees, assignees or transferees
as have entered into possession despite the bar before the coming into
force of this Act, and as continued in possession at such commencement,
have no effect and be deemed never to have had any effect."
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.