- (1.) Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) An open space measuring 66.6 x 40 feet comprised in Survey Nos. 432/25 in Ward No. XVII situated at Bangalore - Bellary Trunk Road in the City of Bellary, was in the possession of Esso Company pursuant to a lease dated July 17, 1969 granted by the appellant. Esso Company was merged into respondent-Corporation on March 14, 1974. The appellant filed eviction petition under Section 21(1)(f) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act (for short, the Act) for ejectment on the ground of subletting, impleading Esso Company and thereafter, the respondent-Corporation. The Esso (Acquisition of Undertakings in India) Act, 1974 (for short, the Esso Act) came into force w.e.f. March 13, 1974. The Courts below dismissed the application on the ground that the Esso Company had not sublet the demised premises but by virtue of statutory operation under the Esso Act, the respondent-Corporation stood transposed as a tenant which is an involuntary act pursuant to Section 7 of the Act; and notwithstanding the specific embargo created under Section 21(1)(f) of the Act, it cannot be construed to be a sub-letting. The High Court also reached the same conclusion on 25/26th June, 1990 in CRP No. 3628/82 (reported in AIR 1991 Karnataka 249). Thus this appeal by special leave.
(3.) Shri Kulkarni, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, contended that Section 21(1)(f) of the Act clearly prohibits assignment or transfer "in any manner" of the interest of the tenant deeming it to be a sub-letting. Therefore, in view of the non-obstante clause contained in sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the Act, the continuance of the respondent Corporation in the premises must be deemed to be due to sub-letting within the meaning of Section 21 (1)(f) of the Act. In support of his contention, he placed strong reliance on a ratio laid down by this Court in M/s. Parasram Harnand Rao v Shanti Prasad Narinder Kumar Jain. (1980) 3 SCC 565 .;