GANTUSA H. BADDI (DEAD) BY LRS. versus MEERABAI G. PAI AND ORS.

Citation: [2000] 3 S.C.R. 275 · Decided: 24-04-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

-
GANTUSA H. BADDI (DEAD) BY LRS. 
A 
v. 
MEERABAI G. PAI AND ORS. 
APRIL 24, 2000 
[G.B. PATIANAIK, R.P. SETHI AND SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, JJ.] 
B 
Rent Control and Eviction: 
Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961: 
S. 3( r)-Tenancy-Non-residential premises-Death of original tenant-
Whether tenancy heritable-Held, yes. 
S. 21 ( 1 )( P )-Tenancy-Non-residential premises-Eviction-Liability-
Acquisition of a vacant premises by partnership firm of which tenant is a 
partner-Effect of-Held, acquisition of a vacant premises by the partnership 
firm would not amount to acquisition of the same by tenant-Thus, tenant not 
liable to be evicted. 
Wo,m and Phrases: 
'Tenant' -Meaning and scope in the context of S. 3( r) of Kamat aka Rent 
Control Act, 1961. 
Respondent-landlord unsuccessfully filed an application for eviction 
of appellant-tenant under S. 21(1)(a), (h) and (p) of the Karnataka Rent 
Act, 1961 before Munsif. However, Revisional Court allowed the eviction 
under s. 21(l)(p) of the Act holding that the partnership firm of which 
tenant was a partner had acquired a non-residential premises. During the 
pendency of revision before the High Court, original te~ant died and his 
legal heirs were brought on record. High Court relying upon the judgment 
of this Court in Venkatesh Thimmaiah 's case held that the tenancy in respect 
of non-residential premises was not heritable under the Act. High Court 
also upheld the eviction under s; 2l(l)(p) of the Act. Hence the present 
appeal. 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
On behalf of appellant-tenant it was contended that in view of the 
decisions of this Court in Vishnu Narayan Gadskari's case and Gian Devi 
H 
275 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
276 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2000] 3 S.C.R. 
Anand's case, the direction of this Court in Venkatesh Thimmaiah's case 
must be held to have been not correctly decided; that the acquisition of a 
premises by the partnership firm of which the tenant was merely a partner 
to the extent of 15 per cent, cannot be held to be an acquisition of alternative 
premises by the tenant in view of the definition of ''tenant" in Section 3(r) of 
the Act. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
Held: 1.1. Tenancy in respect of a non-residential premises under the 
Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 is lt~itabfe. [283-E] 
1.2. Under S. 3(r) of the Act~ 'te~ant' has been defined interalia to 
mean any person by whom or on whose account rent is payable for a 
premises and includes the surviving spouse or any son or daughter or 
father or mother of a deceased tenant who had been living with the tenant 
in the premises as a member of the tenant's family up to the death of the 
tenant. Thus, in the absence of any contrary provisions ill' the Act, High 
Court was not justified in holding that tenancy of a non-residential premises 
cannot be inherited. [279-G; 283-E] 
Gian Devi Anand v. Jeevan Kumar and Ors., [1985] 2 SCC 683, 
followed. 
Vishnu Narayan Gadskari (Dead) by LRs. v. Paralal Baladev Uza and 
Ors., [1995) Supp. 4 SCC 428, relied on. 
Venkatesh Thimmaiah Gurjalkar v. S.S. Hmyaldar, JT (1997) 8 SC 528, 
p 
overruled. 
G 
H 
2.1. High Court was not justified in holding that tenant incurred the 
liability of eviction under S. 21(l)(p) of the Act, on acquisition of a vacant 
premises by the partnership·firm. [284-E] 
2.2. The language of S.21(1)(p) of the Act is clear and unambiguous 
and given its plain grammatical meal_ting, it is susceptible of only one 
construction that it is only when the tenant has built or acquired vacant 
possession of or has been allotted a suitable building, then only the said 
provisions of the Act are attracted and not otherwise. The expression 
''tenant" has been defined in Section 3(r) and howsoever vide meaning to 
' 
~. 
G.H. BADDI v. M.G. PAI [PATIANAIK, J.] 
277 
the said definition be given, it will not bring within its scope, a partnership 
A 
firm of which the tenant himself may be a partner. [283-G-H; 284-A] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1510of1999. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.11.98 of the Kamataka High 
Court in H.R.R.P. No. 532 of 1994. 
B 
G.L. Sanghi, (R.S. Hegde) for P.P. Singh for the Appellants. 
S.N. Bhat and D.P. Chaturvedi for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
PATTANAIK, J. This appeal is directed against the revisional Order of 
a learned Single Judge of Kamataka High Court, dismissing the Revision 
Petition and affinning the order of eviction passed by the District Judge in his 
Revisional Jurisdi

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