E. PARASHURAMAN (D) BY LRS. versus V. DORAISWAMY (D) BY LRS.

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 329 · Decided: 18-11-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.P. SINGH · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

E. PARASHURAMAN (D) BY LRS. 
v. 
V. DORAISWAMY (D) BY LRS. 
NOVEMBER 18, 2005 
[B.P. SINGH AND ARUN KUMAR, JJ.] 
Rent Control and Eviction: 
Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961: Sections 2J(a) and (h). 
A 
B 
c 
Eviction petition-Jura/ relationship of landlord and tenant-Existence 
o/-Bonafide personal need-Property of which rented premises formed a 
part was owned by the Corporation which had leased out the building in 
favour of one 'DH' for a period of ten years-In a civil suit decree was passed 
favour of 'DH'-'DH' assigned the decree in favour of 'D ', predecessor-in- D 
interest of the landlord-Sale deed was executed by the Court on behalf of the 
judgment debtor and in favour of 'D '-'D' filed a suit for eviction of the 
tenant under S. 21(a) and (h)-In terms a/Will executed by him, his daughter, 
the landlord was brought on record as his LRs-Tria/ court held Jura/ · 
relationship existed between landlord and tenants and allowed the eviction E 
petition-High Court afjirme~ the decision-Correctness of-Held: The 
question ofbonafide personal need is a pure question of fact-The landlord 
under the Karnataka Rent Control Act need not be the owner of the premises-
The question which arises is not whether 'D' was the owner of the premises, 
but whether he was the 'landlord' who could sustain an eviction proceeding 
under the Act-Since a "landlord" under the Rent Act can maintain a suit for F 
eviction even without being the owner of the premises, jural relationship existed 
between the landlord and the tenant-Hence, eviction petition rightly allowed 
The property in question of which the rented premises formed a part 
was owned by the Corporation which had leased out the building to one G 
'DH' for a period of 10 years. In a civil suit decree had been passed in 
favour of 'DH' directing the vendors to execute the reconveyJnce deed in 
favour of 'DH' and to deliver all documents in their possession. 'DH' 
assigned the decree in favour of 'D', the predecessor-in-interest of the 
329 
H 
330 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 5 S.C.R . 
. A respondents. Sale deed was executed by the Court on behalf of the 
judgment debtor and in favour of 'D'. 
'D' filed a suit for eviction of the appellants under Section 21(a) and 
(h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961. During the pendency of the 
eviction suit 'D' died. In terms of the Will executed by him, his daughter, 
B the respondent, was brought on record as his legal representative. 
The trial court held that jural relationship of landlord and tenant 
was established between the parties and that the eviction petition was 
maintainable. The trial court allowed the eviction petition on the ground 
C of bona.fide personal need of the respondent-landlord. The High Court 
dismissed the revision petition filed by the appellants holding that once 
the relationship of landlord and tenant was admitted, it continued to exist 
until it was put to an end in a manner known to law. The High Court also 
held that the mere claim of the Corporation claiming to be the owner, 
could not affect the rights and obligations of the parties as landlord and 
D tenants. Hence the appeal. 
E 
F 
On behalf of the appellants, it was contended that the need of the 
respondent was fully met as she had come in possession of other portions 
of the building which were earlier occupied by two other tenants. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1; The question as to the existence of bona.fide personal need 
is a pure question of fact and there is no reason to interfere with the finding 
of the High Court on this issue. (337-C) 
2.1. The landlord under the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 need 
nfilt be the owner of the premises. Secondly, the mere dismissal of the suit 
did not, as a consequence, confer title on the Corporation in respect of 
the property in question. In fact a subsequent suit filed by the Corporation 
for a declaration that the sale deed executed in favour of 'D' was null and 
G void was also dismissed. In these circumstances whatever may be the 
dispute between the Corporation and the respondent, the appellants 
certainly cannot take advantage thereof, once having admitted that they 
were inducted as tenants by 'D', the predecessor-in-interest of the 
respondent. In the suit filed by the Corporation a prayer was made for a 
H direction to the respondent as well as to the appellants to handover vacant 
E. PARASHURAMAN(D)BYLRS. v. V. DORAISWAMY(D)BYLRS. 
331 
possession of the premises to

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.