GOVINDA NAIK G KALGAHATAGI Vs. WEST PATENT PRESS CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A Division Bench of this Court has referred the following question of law arising under the provisions of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 for the opinion of the Full Bench.

(2.) The matter arises out of Proceedings for eviction under proviso to Section 21 (1) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the 'Act') instituted by the petitioner against respondents in H. R. C. No. 287 of 1968 on the file of the Mummify, Hubble, respecting certain lands which, at the time of letting, were agricultural lands; but, which as on the date of institution of the Proceedings came within the limits of Hubli-Dharwar Municipal Corporation and used by the lessees, admittedly, for industrial purposes, the lessee having, in terms of and enabled by the lease deed, erected buildings and structures thereon for industrial purposes. Eviction was sought on grounds of alleged sub-letting.

(3.) The facts leading up to the refer are set out in the order of references dated 12th Dec, 1977, and' it is Dot necessary to set them out in extenso again here, Very briefly stated, they are these: The predecessors in title of the petitioners granted a lease of the land in question in flavor of the first respondent. under the deed dated 14th December, 1887. On 29th July, IBM the lessee surrendered a portion of the land covered by the original lease but then on 7th March, 1904 the portion so surrendered, was leased again in flavor of the first respondent. In 1907, the property was permitted to be converted into nonagricultural user by the Revenue Authorities and it is common ground that the property has been, in fact, so used ever since One of the grounds on which petitioner has been non-suited by the Courts below is that the land in question, having been, an agricultural land as on the date of lease could not be considered. to be "premises" within the meaning of Section 3 (n) of the Act, attracting the provisions of Section 21, though as on the date of the institution of the Proceedings, the lands admittedly were Put to non-agricultural use. This view Proceeded on the basis that the relevant date for purposes of ascertaining whether the land is "premises" within the meaning of Section 3 (n) of the Act was the date of letting. The pronouncement of a Division Bench of this Court in Audrey V. Gangways (1976) 1 Kant LJ 409, which supports this proposition In turn relied for its conclusion on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Subaru v. Nisei Chianti AIR1966 SC 806 , (1962 )64 BOMLR255 , [1962 ]3 SCR98 . The Division Bench whose attention was invited to a subsequent decision Of the Supreme Court in Valued Dhanjibhai Modi y. Rajah Abdul Iranian AIR1970 SC 1475 , (1971 )0 GLR55 , (1970 )1 SCC670 , [1971 ]1 SCR66 for the contrary proposition, was of the opinion that there was an element of irreconcilability between the views expressed in Subhadra's case on the one hand and Vasudev Dhanjibhai Modi's case on the other and that it should follow the former on the principle that the bench that decided the former case was the larger of the two benches. The referring bench was of the opinion that there was no element of irreconcilability in the views expressed in Subhadra's case and Vasudev Dhanjibhai Modi's case and that the decision in Rudrayya's case requires reconsideration.