K. SRINIVASA RAO versus K.M. NARASIMHAIAH GOPAL KRISHNA

Citation: [1989] 1 S.C.R. 577 · Decided: 09-02-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.H. KANIA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

.... 
K. SRINIVASA RAO 
v. 
K.M. NARASIMHAIAH GOPAL KRISHNA 
FEBRUARY 9, 1989 
[M.H. KANIA AND L.M. SHARMA, JJ.] 
Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961: Sections 21(J)(j), 27 and 
28-Tenant's right to occupy a reasonably comparable shop in the re-
constructed building. 
The appellant was one of the eight tenants in the building belong-
ing to Respondent No. 1, who filed eviction petitions against all the 8 
tenants on the ground that the building was bona fide required by him 
for immediate demolition and construction as contemplated under Sec· 
lion 2l(l)G) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act. In the petition against 
the appellant, it was specifically stated that he might occupy the pre· 
mises corresponding to the original tenement in the new building after 
it was built. The application of Respondent Nu. 1 'for deletion of the 
words "correspondig portion" and for leave to withdraw the offer 
made earlier, were rejected. Upon a memorandum filed by the appellant 
consenting to a decree being passed in pursuance of Section 2l(l)(j) of 
the Act, the Court passed an order allowing the eviction petition against 
the appellant. 
After the reconstruction work commenced, appellant gave a 
notice to Respondent No. 1 of his intention to occupy the corresponding 
1 shop in the new building, agreeing to pay the fair rent as contemplated 
.. ._~_under Section 27 of the Act. Meanwhile Respondent No. 1 who got the 
. · eviction decree, filed an appeal before the District Judge, challenging 
the eviction decree on the ground that the Court had no jurisdiction to 
pass any decree by consent under Section 2l(l)(j) of the Act. The 
District Judge allowed the appeal. Immediately thereafter Respondent 
No. 1 inducted Respondent No. 2 as a tenant in a shop in the recon· 
structed building reasonably corresponding to the shop occupied by the 
appellant in the old building, and Respondent No. 2 started his business 
}...: 
in the shop. The appellant preferred a Revision Petition to the High 
· ' 
Cou11 against the order of the District Judge, and in the Revision Peti-
tion the appellant impleaded the second Respondent also. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
The High Court allowed the Revision Petition and held that the 
decree passed by the MunsilTunder Section 21(l)(j) of the Act was not a 
H 
577 
578 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1989] 1 S.C.R. 
A decree passed by consent but was a valid decree passed by a competent 
Court after application of mind. It was also held that the landlord was 
liable to place the tenants in vacant possession of the reconstructed 
building as provided in the Act, and that the rights of the second 
Respondent were subjectto the rights of the original tenant conferred 
on them under Sections 27 and 28 of the Act. 
B 
After the High Court's order, the appellant filed an application 
under Sections 27 and 28 of the Act before the trial court seeking 
permission to occupy the shop premises which was in possession of 
Respondent No. 2. The trial court allowed the application. On revision, 
the High Court set aside the order of the trial court, taking the view that 
C the appellant was not entitled to claim the shop occupied by Respondent 
No. 2 and Respondent No. 1 was required to give the appellant any 
tenement in the newly constructed building. Against this order of the 
High Court the appellant has filed this appeal by special leave. 
On behalf of the appellant, it is claimed that he is entitled to be 
D put in possession of the shop facing the Main Road and occupied by 
Respondent No. 2, whereas he was offered a shop not facing the Main 
Road. 
Allowing the appeal, 
E 
HELD: 1.1 The appellant is entitled to be handed over the pos-
sesssion of the shop occupied by respondent No. 2. [585B] 
1.2 Under the provisions of Section 28 of the said Act, the appel-
lant became entitled to occupy a tenement in the new building. Although 
there is nothing specific in the language of sub-section (1) of Section 28 
~ 
F to that effect, a fair, commonsense reading of the provisions of sub- ·; ""'-
section (1) of Section 28 would show that a tenant against whom eviction 
decree has been passed under Section 21(1)G) and who has given notice 
as contemplated under Section 27 of that Act would be entitled to a 
tenement in the new building which could be said to he reasonably com-
parable to or to reasonably corre;;pond to the tenement in respect of 
G which the decree was passed. The High Court based its judgment on the 
consideration of a question 

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