C N RUDRAMURTHY Vs. K BARKATHULLA KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant filed a suit against Bhaskaran, the original tenant in occupation of a premises bearing Nos. 199 and 200 situated at Brigade Road in Bangalore city for recovery of possession thereof on the ground that he had defaulted in payment of rent and had sub-let the same contrary to law. The original tenant set up the defence that he had not sub-let the suit premises or any portion thereof, but had only entered into an agreement to run business on his behalf and he was not liable to be evicted. The original tenant died on 8-1-1983 and his legal representatives were brought on record. They filed a written statement on 1-8-1984 contending that their father had parted with possession of the suit premises to Respondent 1 and no decree could be passed against them. Respondent 1 was impleaded as a defendant on an application made by him. He contended that he had become a partner with Bhaskaran with the consent of the appellants and the partnership stood dissolved as on 10-12-1982 and thus he was a tenant under the appellant directly. His tenancy had not been terminated and, therefore, there was no cause for suit. By a decree made on 31/3/1993, the City Civil court directed the eviction of the first respondent. Respondent 1 prefered an appeal against the said decree in the High court. This appeal is against that order made by the High court of Karnataka in that appeal filed by Respondent 1.

(2.) In the High court three principal points were formulated for consideration:

(3.) The High court held that there is no acceptable evidence to declare the first respondent as a tenant and thereby affirmed the conclusion reached by the trial court. After examining the scope of Section 23 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act which forbids creation of sub-lease or assignment or transfer either of the whole or any part of the demised premises, the learned Judge was of the view that the original tenant allowed others to carry on the business in his name as he was unable to carry on the business by himself due to old age initially by inducting the first respondent as a partner of the firm and then in his own capacity as an owner of the business concern which was not an unknown mode of transfer of tenancy and, therefore, the first defendant was not a trespasser. He, however, noticed that the first respondent was not inducted with the consent of the landlord and therefore his possession becomes unlawful and he is liable to be evicted under the provisions of Section 21 (l) (f) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act and no other conclusion was possible in this regard. In view of that finding he held that the civil court has no jurisdiction to pass an order of eviction as there is a specific provision ousting the jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain any suit for eviction of a tenanted premises. On that basis, he allowed the appealand set aside the decree made by the trial court and directed the parties to work out their remedies in a Rent court.