LexB. G. KUMARVELU AND ANR. versus K.R. KANAKARATHNAM CHETTY AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B.G. KU~1ARVEl,U AND ANR.
K.R. KANAKARATHNA~1 CHETTY AND ORS.
JANI :'\RY :1. 1906
11
·IS C. AGRAWAL ANDS. SAGl-llR Al-IM.\D . .11
;, .. uutaku Ren/ Co111ro! Act.·l 9(12-Sec 3( 11)-· Pre111i..,·l.!s :-Scu11e rd:._.___.
r .L'Use in resflCLI t!f"o 'b11ifdi11g · 1vith.f/'t1;11gs &_fur11i111n:J; ,,. running cl ci11e11u1
1/1ei/i,.c---;:flcld.Jl1lls 1l'ilhi11 the un1bi1 r~(t!te l:XfJressirin-Tes! r!(do111ina11f ;;1-
C
f e111iu11 t'.{ the parties-i )~ 1111i11dlll J'll l~1 ·ose r~j"rlu-' de·nise-Hui/,_ling qua bui fd-
illg und 1i1e ;;·rrings 1.111d oilter equ.i1n11e11t 1Jt1ssed ii1cidenild!y 11·11 h rhc b!rilding.
Kar1u11a/.:11 Rent Co11trol A(f, /<.,'61-."le( .2/-I'rotcctioii agoies:
evicfh111--.Je11an15, hell7, e111i1! .. d Jr,.
D
The suit property. a.dnmw !hc:i!rc, was leased to aprcllanl's father
E
vidc lease deed dated September 29,.1944 with fittings, f:in1Hure, machi11·
ery, etc. by the la11dlords, mother and father of respondent N?. 2. Tht•y
had 5/8 a11d 3/8 share in the property respectively. There was a family
partition after the death of the appellant's father and the leasehold inter-
est in the suit prQperty was allotted to appellants and they were treated as
tenant holding over by the landlords.
The said property was subsequently sold to respondents Nos. l & 2
and they got S/8 and 3/8 share in the propcrt) respectively. On the "r1n1e
day there "··as al!ornn1rnt of trnancy by the appclla;1ts i11 fa1·011r of rc-
F
spl'ndents Nos. I. & 2. The appellants continued to be the tenants '-ince
1944 hy executing, from time to timr, separnl" :e.•.«' deeds in favour of
Respondents Nos. I. & 2 in respect of their sh.:res in the premises a·nd in
; favour of Respondents Nos. 3 !o 5 for furniture etc. The rent fo.· the build·
ing and fittings and the hire for furniture and machinery etc. has been
G
apportioned, the ratio heiug 2 : I, approximately.
On expiry of the lease appellants failed lo hand over the possession
to Respondents. A suit was filed by Respondents in the court of Addi. .City
Civil Judge, which was decreed and appellant.s were directed 19 deliver
vacant possession of the opera House building with furniture, fittings, ma-
H
chinery, ~tc.
42
'
B.G. KUMARVELU v. K.R. CHETTY
43
On appeal, High Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court and
A
i
held that dominant purpose of the lease was to run a cinema business in
the building with the furniture, machinery and equipment provided
therein, and that the lease was outside the purview of the Act and the same
does not come under the provisions of the Act.
Against the order of the High Court, appellants preferred an appeal
B
by way of special leave contending that the lease was primarily a lease for
the building, and the fittings, furniture etc. which were lease out along
with the building was for the beneficial enjoyment of the building; they
\.
were incidental and not the dominant purpose of the lease; and that pro-
'\
jectors, amplifiers screen and speakers were not part or'the equipment c
that was leased out.
Respondents contended that the dominant P.Urpose of the lease was
for rnnning a cinema theatre and lease for furniture was not an independ-
ent transaction. The mere fact that some equipm<:nts were not leased out
would not alter the nature of lease.
D
Allowing the appeal and setting the decree passed by the trial court,
this court
HELD : 1. The lease primarily of a building falling under sec 3(a) of
the Karnataka Rent Control Act and appellants are entitled to the protec-
E
tion of the Act in the matter of eviction. The property covered by the lease
is the cinema building, furniture, fittings and some eqnipments. The pro·
jectors, amplifiers, screen and speakers are, however, not included in the
demise. In the lease deeds that were executed since 1944, from time to
'-.
time, the rent for the building and fittings and the hire for furniture, ma·
F
chinery etc. have been apportioned and that rent for the building is much
more than the hire of the furniture, machinery etc., the ratio being 2 : 1
approximately. [52-B-C]
2. It cannot, therefore, be said that cinema equipment is more im·
portant part of the demise than the building. Having regard to the appor-
G
,.,
tionment of the rent for the building and the furniture and equipment it
can be said that the dominant purpose of the demise is the building qua
building and the fittings and other equipment only incidentally passed
with the bExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.