MAHENDRA SAREE EMPORIUM Vs. G V SRINIVASA MURTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -Respondent, G.V. Srinivasa Murthy is the owner-cum-landlord of the suit premises, non-residential in nature. M/s. Mahendra Saree Emporium was a sole proprietary concern - now a partnership firm, sued as the tenant and is the appellant before us. On 21.7.1987 proceedings for eviction were initiated by the landlord against the tenant on the ground alleged to be available under clause (f) of sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, hereinafter, the 1961 Act or the Old Act, for short. It is not disputed that the premises were taken on rent under Lease Deed dated 16.12.1968 executed by Jugraj, father of Indrachand. The business in the name and style of M/s. Mahendra Saree Emporium was always conducted by Indrachand, who was minor on 16.12.1968 when the tenancy commenced. Later the business has been converted into a partnership business. Indrachands two brothers, one brothers wife and one uncles son are included in the partnership. According to the landlord, the tenant has unlawfully sub-let the premises. According to him, the premises were for an individuals business and entering into partnership amounts to a ground for eviction under Section 21(1)(f) of the 1961 Act which provides for the tenant being evicted if the tenant has unlawfully sub-let the whole or part of the premises or assigned or transferred in any other manner his interest therein". The learned Rent Controller found the ground for eviction not made out and directed the eviction petition to be dismissed. The landlord preferred a revision under sub-section (1) of Section 50 of the 1961 Act. A learned Single Judge of the High Court has, vide his order dated 25.9.1998, reversed the finding of the Rent Controller and held the ground for eviction made out and directed the tenant to be evicted. On 13.11.1998, the tenant filed this petition seeking special leave to appeal. The leave has been granted.

(2.) During the pendency of the petition, the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the 1999 Act or the New Act) has been enacted and has come into force with effect from 31.12.1999. The 1961 Act has stood repealed. Sections 69 and 70 of the New Act provide as under :

(3.) It is not disputed that the area of the suit premises, which are non-residential in nature, exceeds 14 sq.metres and, therefore, in view of the provisions contained in clause (g) of sub-section (3) of Section 2 of the 1999 Act, the provisions of the 1999 Act do not apply to the suit premises. On May 1, 2002 a Bench (Coram of two) of this Court formed an opinion that if the premises would have been one to which the 1999 Act is applicable, then under Section 70(2)(b) of the hearing would have continued and the case disposed of in accordance with the provisions of the New Act but that was not the case here and, therefore, the case attracted the applicability of Section 70(2)(c) and hence directed the proceedings to stand abated. The decision is reported as Mahendra Saree Emporium vs. G.V. Srinivasa Murthy, (2002) 5 SCC 416. On a review petition preferred by the landlord, vide order dated February 21, 2003 the order dated May 1, 2002 was recalled and the appeal was directed to be listed for hearing in view of the question of law centering around the interpretation of Section 70 of 1999 Act arising for decision.