- (1.) The landlords-applicants in an application for eviction are the appellants in these three appeals. Facts leading to the filing of the appeals are as under. Gangadharappa, the father of the appellants, was the owner of a vacant site bearing No. 207, situated at Srinivas Mandir Road, Balepet Cross, Bangalore. He executed deed in favour of the respondent No. I herein leasing the said site for a period of 20 years commencing from January 6, 1966. The lease deed provided, inter alia, that the lessee would be entitled to construct a building at his own expense and use it for himself and for others at his instance. It further provided as follows: "The lessee may let or sub-let any portion of the whole of the premises to anybody whomsoever he likes. But the lessee shall deliver possession of the same to the lessor or to his success ors-in-interest at the expiry of the lease."
(2.) Pursuant to the said lease the respondent No. 1 took possession of the site, constructed a building thereon and inducted the respondent Nos. 2 to 8 herein as his tenants (hereinafter referred to as the 'sub-tenants). Before the period of lease expired Gangadharappa died leaving behind the appellants as his heirs.
(3.) After the expiry of the period of lease the appellants served notices upon the respondent No. 1 and the sub-tenants, calling upon them to hand over vacant possession o the demised premises; and on their failure to do so filed an application in the Court of the Small Causes, Bangalore for recovery o possession on grounds mentioned in clauses (d), (f), (h), 0) and (p) of Section 2](1) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 ('Act' for short). On consideration of the materials placed before it, the Court recorded a finding that the ground referred to in clause (p) of said section was only made out as the landlords had been able to prove that the respondent No. 1 had acquired another suitable building and shifted there to carry on his own business. As, according to the Court, 'tenant', as defined in Section 3(r) of the Act, did not include a person inducted by him after the coming into force of the Act it held that on proof of the above ground not only the respondent No. 1 but the other respondents also were liable to be evicted in view of Section 30 of the Act. Resultantly, the Court, passed an order directing eviction of all the respondents from the premises. Aggrieved thereby respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 herein filed three separate revision petitions in the High Court. On an analysis of the various provisions of the Act as applicable to the facts of the case, the High Court allowed the revision petitions and dismissed the application for eviction with the following findings:- "I therefore hold that under the provisions of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, eviction of the tenant and sub-tenant can be claimed if the landlord establishes that the tenant has unlawfully sublet the premises to the subtenant. A case of lawful subletting will not attract Section 21(1)(f) of the Act as a ground for ordering the eviction of the tenant and the sub-tenant. Having regard to the provisions of Section 21(1)(f) read with S. 21(3) and Ss. 22 and 23 of the Act it must be held that a sub-tenant, who is inducted by a tenant with the prior written consent of the landlord is a lawful sub-tenant. Such a sub-tenant becomes a deemed tenant when the interest of the tenant is determined for any reason. The protection afforded to a deemed tenant under S. 22 of the Act is equally available to a lawful sub-tenant inducted after coming into force of the Act, upon determination of the interest of the tenant in the premises. Such a lawful subtenant can therefore seek the protection of the Act including those under Section 21 of the Act. In the instant case, therefore, the learned Judge erred in law in holding that since the ground for the eviction of the tenant was made out under Section 21(1)(p) of the Act, the sub-tenant could also be evicted having regard to the provisions of S . 30 of the Act. If the tenants acquired the status of a deemed tenant upon termination of the interest of the tenant in the premises, they acquired an independent title to such premises, and therefore, S. 30 was inapplicable to their cases.";