KAVERIPATNAM SUBBARAYA SETTY ANNAIAH SETTY CHARITIES TRUST versus S.K. VISWANATHA SETTY

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 121 · Decided: 22-07-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ASHOK BHAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

KAVERIPATNAM SUBBARAYA SETTY 
ANNAIAH SETTY CHARITIES TRUST 
v. 
S.K. VISWANATHA SETTY 
JULY 22, 2004 
(ASHOK BHAN AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] 
Rent Control and Eviction: 
A 
B 
Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961-Section 2(7)(bb)(iii)-Tenant 
vacated shop since landlord-trust desired to demolish old building to C 
construct new one-Tenant's case that after reconstruction he requested 
that the shop in new building be re-let to him on payment of certain amount 
but not replied-Thereafter, he look possession of shop in new building as 
tenant on payment of advance rent for three years-On the other hand, 
landlord and tenant allegedly executing mortgage deed for three years in D 
favour of tenant on payment of certain amount-Suit for possession on 
expiry of mortgage period-Tenant sought protection under 1961 Act-
Suit decreed in favour of landlord-Lower appellate court set aside the 
decree-High Court dismissed landlord's appeal-On appeal, held: There 
is no evidence to show that mortgage deed was executed as security for E 
the alleged loan-Circumstances prove that tenancy continued even after 
the tenant vacated the shop in the old building and as such High Court 
was right in holding that document executed was only a device to defeat 
the provisions of 1961 Act-Landlord did not take the plea·in courts below 
that 1961 Act is not applicable to trust properties in view of amendment F 
to section 2(7)(bb)(iii)_:.Hence, High Court rightly rejected the. same in 
absence of any material available to substantiate the plea. 
Appellant-charitable· trust let out one of the shops in the old 
building owned by them, to respondent-tenant in 1950. Respondent 
after receiving notice from the trustee that they intended to demolish G 
the old building and construct a new building, vacated the shop in 1969. 
Thereafter, building was demolished and construction of new building 
was completed by 1975. It is respondent's case that he called upon the 
trustees to re-let the shop in the new building as a tenant and offered 
to pay certain amount and also enhanced rent but did not receive any H 
121 
122 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A reply. Next year, on reconsideration of tenants offer, Managing trustee 
.. 
re-let the shop in the new building to respondent on payment of Rs. 
16,200, advance rent for three years@ Rs. 450 per month. Respondent 
raised loan of Rs. 10,000 from the Managing Trustee's father in law 
for payment of rent. On the other hand it is alleged that appellant and 
B respondent entered into a mortgage deed whereunder respondent was 
given possession of shop for three years on payment of Rs. 16,200 
which was to be repaid by trustee on expiry of mortgage period and 
respondent was to vacate the premises to the appellant. After the 
expiry of the mortgage period appellant filed suit for possession. Trial 
c Court decreed the suit in favour of appellant. Lower appellate court 
set aside the decree passed by trial Court and dismissed the suit. High 
Court held that respondent continued to be a tenant after 1969 duly 
protected under the 1961 Act and as such the redemption deed was 
only a device to defeat the provisions of the 1961 Act and dismissed 
D the appeal filed by the appellant. Hence the present appeal. 
Appellant contended that the respondent had voluntarily surren-
dered the shop in the old building and as such his tenancy came to an 
end, consequently the provisions of 1961 Act were not applicable; that 
E 
the deed executed was a self redemption deed which proves that 
respondent was in possession of the shop as a mortgagee and on expiry 
of the mortgage period, he was required to vacate and hand over 
vacant possession of the shop to the trustees; and that by amendment 
to section 2(7)(bb)(iii), 1961 Act would not apply to the premises 
belonging to religious and charitable institution and as such respond-
/ 
F ent was not entitled to protection under the 1961 Act. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : I. The evidence on record proves that the respondent was 
G a tenant of the shop in the old building from 1950. He continued to 
be a tenant of that shop till 1969. Furthermore, it shows that the old 
building was demolished around 1969 and by 1975 the new building 
stood constructed. Appellant has not brought on record the circum-
stances under which they claim that the original shop was voluntarily 
H surrendered by respondent. On the contrary, after re-construction, 
-
K.S. SEITY v. S.K.V. SEITY

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