BHOOLCHAND Vs. KAY PEE CEE INVESTMENTS
LAWS(SC)-1990-10-28
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: KARNATAKA)
Decided on October 10,1990

BHOOLCHAND Appellant
VERSUS
KAY PEE CEE INVESTMENTS Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

PHOOL WATI VS. HARSH GOGIA [LAWS(DLH)-1996-5-99] [REFERRED]
KRISHNA PRATAP SINGH VS. D D C FAIZABAD [LAWS(ALL)-1995-11-7] [REFERRED TO]
RAMZAN ALI VS. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION AZMAGARH [LAWS(ALL)-1997-6-6] [REFERRED TO]
GORAKH NATH VS. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION FATEHPUR [LAWS(ALL)-1997-6-19] [REFERRED TO]
BRIDHICHAND PANNALAL VS. BHANWARLAL DUGAR [LAWS(GAU)-2009-8-36] [REFERRED TO]
BHUPENDRA N PATEL VS. HARSHAVARDHAN CHOKKANI [LAWS(APH)-1999-7-15] [REFERRED TO]
B H RANGASWAMY VS. MYSORE ARTS AND WOOD WORKS [LAWS(KAR)-1992-9-28] [FOLLOWED ON]
K S SHIVANNA VS. J C RAJASEKHARAIAH [LAWS(KAR)-1995-2-15] [FOLLOW ON]
JAIN CLOTH STORES VS. M KEWALCHAND [LAWS(KAR)-2002-2-31] [REFERRED TO]
K S MUDDUGOWRAMMA VS. P SURYANARAYANA [LAWS(KAR)-2003-1-35] [REFERRED TO]
RAKHAV LAL VS. SARDAR KIRPAL SINGH [LAWS(MPH)-2007-5-29] [REFERRED TO]
MANHAR AUTO SOTRES AMRAVATI VS. KALPESH HEMANTBHAI SHAH [LAWS(BOM)-2010-2-52] [REFERRED TO]
JAGDISH PRASAD VS. VISHNU KUMAR [LAWS(RAJ)-2004-4-26] [REFERRED TO]
SAEEDA MOHAMMAD KAYUM VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2006-7-64] [REFERRED TO]
HARDHAYANDAS VS. HIFAZAT HUSSAIN DIED PER L R AIZAZ HUSSAIN [LAWS(APH)-1994-9-52] [REFERRED TO]
HIRA CHAND VS. SUKHDEV RAJ JAIN [LAWS(P&H)-2008-4-42] [REFERRED TO]
HARJIT KAUR VS. M.K. SETH [LAWS(P&H)-2004-9-20] [REFERRED TO]
KEMPAIAH VS. LINGAIAH [LAWS(SC)-2001-10-38] [REFERRED]
GHULAM QADIR VS. SPECIAL TRIBUNAL [LAWS(SC)-2001-10-122] [REFERRED]
M S ZAHED VS. K RAGHAVAN [LAWS(SC)-1998-12-36] [DISTINGUISHED]
CHAMPA LAL VS. SHAIK NAJMUDDIN ALIAS GULSHEER PASHA [LAWS(SC)-2002-5-37] [REFERRED]
YASHODA DEVI SARADA VS. POORNIMA DRESSES [LAWS(APH)-2010-11-75] [REFERRED TO]
SITARAM MOHABIA VS. PARAMANAND PAINTER [LAWS(CHH)-2012-8-40] [REFERRED TO]
GURINDER SINGH VS. KUNDAN LAL [LAWS(P&H)-2004-11-21] [REFERRED TO]
HARJIT SINGH VS. DAYA RAM SAT NARAIN [LAWS(P&H)-2002-12-40] [REFERRED TO]
MANGAL SINGH VS. VARINDER KUMAR [LAWS(P&H)-2003-1-96] [REFERRED TO]
DARSHAN KUMAR VS. MAHESH KUMAR [LAWS(P&H)-2003-1-99] [REFERRED TO]
MANJIT SINGH VS. JOGINDER SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-2003-1-101] [REFERRED TO]
ASHWANI CHATLAY VS. BRIG. H.S. DHILLON [LAWS(P&H)-2003-3-71] [REFERRED TO]
INDERJIT KAUR VS. BAIJ NATH [LAWS(P&H)-2003-5-124] [REFERRED TO]
SHAROMANI GURDWARA PARBANDHAK COMMITTEE VS. SUBHASH CHANDER [LAWS(P&H)-2003-5-125] [REFERRED TO]
JAGJIT SINGH BAINS VS. BRIJ MOHAN SHARMA [LAWS(P&H)-2003-7-121] [REFERRED TO]
JAGDISH VS. SANJAY KUMAR [LAWS(P&H)-2003-2-117] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMED ABDUL HAMEED VS. ZULFIKHAR AHMED [LAWS(APH)-2013-7-46] [REFERRED TO]
HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD VS. DILBAHAR SINGH [LAWS(SC)-2014-8-56] [REFERRED TO]
BRIJ LAL S/O SUNSA RAM VS. SMT. LAL BAI W/O GULI CHAND NOW DECEASED REPRESENTED THROUGH HER LEGAL HEIR SHRI AMAR SINGH S/O SH. GULI CHAND [LAWS(P&H)-2002-12-75] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMED ABDUL AZIZ AND OTHERS VS. K. JAFFAR HUSSAIN [LAWS(KAR)-1995-10-43] [REFERRED TO]
RAJESHBHAI CHHAGANBHAI CHOKHALIYA & 3 VS. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE GUJARAT POLICE DEPARTMENT & 2 [LAWS(GJH)-2016-9-27] [REFERRED]
NATHALAL MAGANBHAI PATEL HEAD OF DEPARTMENT OF,MECHANICAL NGINEERING VS. STATE OF GUJARAT & 2 [LAWS(GJH)-2015-10-212] [REFERRED]
THORAT NAYAN HEMCHANDRA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT & 3 [LAWS(GJH)-2015-11-127] [REFERRED]
K S ANILKUMAR VS. KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE ELECTION COMMISSION CO-B [LAWS(KER)-2017-6-253] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. NARESHKUMAR BADRIKUMAR JAGAD & ORS. [LAWS(SC)-2018-11-68] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)These appeals by special leave are by the tenant and the sub-tenant against a decree for eviction passed on the grounds of sub-letting and the reasonable and bona fide requirement of the respondent landlord specified in clauses (f) and (h) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter called "the Act"). The Trial Court had rejected the landlord's application for an order of eviction on these grounds, but the High Court in a revision under Section 50 of the Act has set aside the Trial Court's order and passed the decree for eviction on these grounds. Hence these appeals.
(2.)The material facts are undisputed at this stage. The premises comprise of two shops and a house adjoining the shops and belonged earlier to one T.A. Jotindranath Mudaliar. The premises were let out by the original lessor to M/s. Bhoolchand Chandiram (Appellant in Civil Appeal No. 4701 of 1985) on 4-10-1943 on terms contained in the letter dated 4-10-1943 from the original lessor to M/ s. Bhoolchand Chandiram which reads as under:
"T.A. Jotindranath Mudaliar., 933, Laxmipur

Mysore,

4th October 43

To

Messrs. Boolchand Chandirarn,

Silk Merchant,

C/o Messrs. Bhagwandas Shyamsunder and Co.,

112, Commercial Street,

Bangalore Cantt.

Dear Sirs,

With reference to your letter dated 30th Sept. 43 and your personal conversation about renting out my shops in the Commercial Street, Bangalore Cantonment, it is agreed and confirmed that you are prepared to take the two shops at monthly rent of Rs. 430/- (Rs. Four hundred and thirty only) with two years agreement and three months' advance and execute the necessary rental deed, with the option of sub-letting one of the shops. As for the House adjoining the shops at monthly rent of Rs. 50/- (Rs. Fifty only) with one month's advance and Eleven Months' rental deed. You have the option of sub-letting the house also.

Yours sincerely,

Sd/-

T.A. Jotindranath Mudaliar"

(3.)M/s. Bhoolchand Chandiram continued as a tenant in the premises and sometime in the year 1946 sublet one of the two shops to one 'Arts Palace'. Later, w.e.f. 1-4-1948 the appellant M/ s. Bhoolchand Chandiram inducted another sub-tenant M/s. Super Dry Cleaners (Appellant in Civil Appeal No. 4702 of 1985) in place of Arts Palace in the same shop. In 1960, a partition took place in the Hindu Undivided Family of Mudaliar brothers, the original lessor and the suit premises fell to the share of Narendranath Mudaliar. M/s. Bhoolchand Chandiram continued in the premises as the tenant with Super Dry Cleaners as the sub-tenant in one shop from 1-4-1948. The original lessor (including Narendranath Mudaliar after partition in the HUF of Mudaliar brothers) continued to take rent from the tenant M/ s. Bhoolchand Chandiram of the entire premises i.e. two shops and the house adjoining the shops till May, 1974. On 28-6-1974, the said Narendranath Mudaliar executed a registered sale deed in favour of respondent NO. 11 M/s. Kay Pee Cee Investments, a registered partnership firm comprising of three ladies of one family as partners, for the sale consideration of Rs. 1,40,000/ -. It may be mentioned that in a proceeding for fixation of standard rent between the original lessor and the tenant, monthly rent of Rs. 325 / - was fixed for the entire premises i.e. two shops and the house and the rent due up to May, 1974 was paid by the tenant to the original lessor. After execution of the said sale deed in favour of respondent No. 1, the tenant attorned in favour of respondent No. 1 and paid rent for the entire premises @.Rs. 325 per month to respondent No. 1.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.