LAXMIDAS BAPUDAS DARBAR Vs. RUDRAVVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question that directly falls for consideration in this appeal is whether or not, a petition under Section 21(1)(h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, for eviction of a tenant under a contractual fixed term lease, would be maintainable on the ground of reasonable and bona fide requirement of the landlord. On certain occasions earlier, the question has been considered by this Court as well as High Courts including Full Benches of the Karnataka High Court but there does not seem to be a cohesion of views.

(2.) The brief factual background giving rise to the point is that in the year 1905, the mother and guardian of one Gurappa Channbasappa Belaguri, holding a power of attorney, leased out his non-agricultural land to Anant Parashuram Nagaonkar for a period of 99 years, to establish a factory. In the year 1907, the lessee Nagaonkar aforesaid, assigned the lease in favour of Ramdas Vithaldas Darbar for a sum of Rs. 8,500/-. The original parties to the agreements have all died and their heirs have stepped into their shoes and they are parties to the present proceedings.

(3.) In the year 1986 the lessors served a notice to the lessees calling upon them to vacate the premises on the ground that the lessees did not pay rents for the period 1-3-85 to 31-3-86 and that the property was also bona fide required for their occupation. Reply to the notice is said to have been sent by the lessees denying default in payment as alleged and asserted inter alia that the lessors had no right to terminate the lease in view of the 99 years' fixed term lease under the agreement. Thereafter, however, the lessors filed an application under Section 21(1)(h) and 21 (1)(p) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 on the ground that the premises were bona fide required by them for starting their own business.