G. GIRIYAPPA AND ORS. versus ANANTHARAI L. PAREKH AND ORS.

Citation: [1994] 3 S.C.R. 403 · Decided: 07-04-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. MOHAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

t 
-; 
) 
1 
_.. 
O. GJRIYAPPA AND ORS. 
v. 
ANANTHARAI L. PAREKH AND ORS. 
APRIL 7, 1994 __ 
[S. MOHAN AND M.K. MUKHERJEE, JJ.] 
Kamataka Rent Control Act, 1961: Sections 3(r), 21(1) (d) (f) (h) (j) 
(p), 22, 23 and JO. 
Landlord-Tenant-Lease-Tenns of-Lessee entitled to sub-let-But 
su/J-te11ants inducted after the coming into force of the Act-Protection af-
forded to a 'Deemed Tenant' under the Act-Whether can be afforded to such 
a sub-tenant. 
Interpretation of Statutes-Social Legislation-:lnterpretation of-
Liberal construction-When pennissible. 
The appellants' father leased a plot of land to Respondent No. 1. 
Under the terms of the lease deed the respondent-lessee was entitled to 
construct a building and to let and sub-let any portion of the premises. 
lie constructed a building on the plot leased and subsequent to the coming 
Into Carce of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 Inducted Respondents 
2 to 8 as sub-tenants. The appellants filed an application for recovery of 
possession under Section 21(1) (d) (I) (h) (j) and (p). The Trial Court 
passed the eviction order against all the respondents holding that since 
tbe 'Tenant' defined under Section 3(r), did not inclnde sub-tenants in· 
ducted after the Act came into force the tenant and sub-tenants were liable 
to be evicted under section 30 of the Act. 
The respondents preferred Revision Petitions before the High Court 
Wl!icb were allowed holding that (i) a case of lawful sub-letting will not 
11ttr11ct Section 21(1) (I) as a ground for ordering the eviction of the tenant 
11nd snb·tenant; (ii) the protection afforded to a deemed tenant nnder 
Section 22 was equally available to a lawful sub-tenant inducted after 
coming into force of the Act; and (iii) since the tenants had acquired the 
status of a deemed teuant upon determination of the Interest of the tem\nt 
In the premises, they acquired an independent title to such premises, and 
therefore, section 30 inapplicable to their cases. 
403 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
404 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1994] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
In appeals to this Court it was contended on behalf of the appellants 
B 
that a sub-tenant, even if lawfully inducted, after coming into force of the 
Act, is liable to be evicted in view of section 30 of the Act, and the High 
Court was, therefore, notjustlied in observing that the protection afforded 
to a deemed tenant was equally available to such a lawful sub-tenant. 
On behalf of the respondents it was contended that the Act is a piece 
of social legislation meant mainly to protect tenant from frivolous eviction 
and, therefore, it should be interpreted liberally to subserve the interest of 
the tenants to the extent passible. 
C 
Allowing the appeals and setting aside the order of the High Court, 
this Court 
HELD : 1. The High Court was not justified in dovetailing Section 
23 (1) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 in Section 22 to equate the 
status of a sub-tenant inducted before the coming into force of the Act with 
D that of the one inducted after coming into operation of the Act on the basis 
of assumed intention of the legislature in enacting the Act of liberal 
construction of the provision thereof. [410-B·CJ 
2. The Karnataka Rent control Act, 1961 has not defined 'tenant' to 
E Include a 'sub-tenant'. But then, the legislature thought it fit to protect the 
sub-tenants who were lawfully inducted before coming into operation of the 
Act by giving them the status of a 'tenant' by the deeming provisions of 
Section 22. Section 23 (1), however, expressly prohibits a tenant from 
inducting a sub-tenant after tloe coming into force of the Act except in 
F 
accordance with a contract permitting such sub-letting. In case of any 
sub-letting in breach of the above provision the tenant is liable not only for 
eviction under Section 21(1) (I) but also for conviction under Section 23(2) 
of the Act. On a conspectus of the above two sections it is, therefore, patently 
clear that they have been enacted for distinct and different purposes. While 
by Section 22 the legisfature bas conferred certain rights to lawful sub-
G tenants, by Section 23 it bas curtailed the right of sub-leasing. 
(409-G-H; 410-A-B] 
3.1. The High Court is right in observing that a case of lawful 
sub-letting in accordance with section 23 will not attract Section 21 (1) (I) 
of. the Act as a ground for eviction of the tenant and for that matter the 
H sub-tenant, but High Court failed to notice that the same pr

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