LAXMIDAS BAPUDASS DARBAR AND ANR. versus SMT. RUDRAVVA ORS.

Citation: [2001] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 229 · Decided: 27-08-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.P. BHARUCHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

LAXMIDAS BAPUDASS DARBAR AND ANR. 
v. 
SMT. RUDRA VV A AND ORS. 
AUGUST 27, 2001 
[S.P. BHARUCHA, Y.K. SABHARWAL AND BRIJESH KUMAR, JJ.] 
Rent Control and Eviction 
Karna/aka Rent Control Act, 1961 : Section 21(1) (h) 
Contractual fixed term /ease-Tenant under-Eviction of-Petition on 
the ground of reasonable and bonafide requirement of landlord-Held not 
maintainable-Non-obs/ante clause in section 21-Ejfect on fixed term 
contractual lease explained 
A 
B 
c 
The respondent-lessors' predecessor-in-interest leased out his non- D 
agricultural land for a period of99 years. Subsequently, he filed an application 
under section 2l(h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 on the ground 
that the premises were required bona fide for starting his own business. The 
Trial Court allowed the petition and passed an order for eviction of the lessees 
holding that it was not a permanent lease and that section 21 of the Karnataka 
Rent Control Act was applicable to the lease in question. The District Judge E 
held that it was a lease of permanent nature and therefore section 21(1) was 
inapplicable. The revision preferred by respondent-lessors was allowed by 
High Court which held that the District Court erred in finding that the lease 
was perpetual in nature. It was held that the provisions of the Karnataka Rent 
Control Act were applicable, de hors the contract of lease and a petition for p 
eviction of the lessees under section 2l(l)(h) of the Act was maintainable. 
In appeal to this Court the question arose as to whether a petition under 
section 21(1)(h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act; for eviction of a tenant 
under contractual fixed term lease would be maintainable on the ground of 
reasonable and bona fide requirement of the landlord. 
G 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1. Section 21 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 is a 
provision providing statutory protection to the tenants. The prohibition 
regarding eviction of a tenant contained in section 21 is however relaxed under H 
229 
230 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2001] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A the proviso saying that an order for recovery of possession of the premises 
can be made on an application made on that behalf only on the grounds as 
enumerated in clauses (a) to (p) to the proviso. The use of the word 'only' in 
the proviso is significant to emphasise that it relates to grounds alone which 
cannot be added over and above as provided. The whole contract or other 
B conditions not related to eviction or grounds of eviction shall not be affected. 
So far a fixed term lease is concerned, it shall be affected only to the extent 
that even after expiry of period of the lease the possession cannot be obtained 
by the lessor unless one or more of the grounds contained in section 21 of the 
Act are available for eviction of the tenant. There is nothing to indicate nor 
it has been held in any case that in view of section 21 a contract of fixed term 
C tenancy stands obliterated in totality. It cannot be concluded that a contract 
of tenancy looses significance on coming into force of the Karnataka Rent 
Act. 1237-B-E, G] 
D 
2. The effect of the non-obstante clause contained under section 21 of 
the Karnataka Rent Act on the fixed term contractual lease is as follows :-
(i) On expiry of period of the fixed lease, the tenant would be liable for 
eviction only on the grounds as enumerated in clauses (a) to (p) of sub-section 
(1) of Section 21 of the Act. [238-A, B] 
(ii) Any ground contained in the agreement of lease other than or in 
E addition to the grounds enumerated in clauses (a) to (p) of sub-section (1) of 
Section 21 of the Act shall remain inoperative. 1238-B] 
F 
G 
(iii) Proceedings for eviction of a tenant under a fixed term contractual 
lease can be initiated during subsistence or currency of the lease only on a 
ground as may be enumerated in clauses (a) to (p) of sub-section (1) of Section 
21 of the Act and it is also provided as one of the grounds for forfeiture of 
the lease rights in the lease deed not otherwise. 1238-C-D] 
(iv) The period of fixed term lease is ensured and remains protected 
except in the case indicated in preceding paragraph. 1238-D] 
Dhanapal Chettiar v. Yesodai Ammal and Anr., AIR (1979) SC 1745, 
explained and held inapplicable. 
Mis. Bombay Tyres International Ltd. v. K.S. Prakash, AIR (1997) 
Karnataka 311 and Sri Lakshmi Venkateshwara Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v. Syeda 
H Vajhiunnissa Begum, ILR (1994) Karnataka 1659, overrule

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