M/S. K. GANESH SHET versus SRI A.K. JAYARAMA SHEKA AND ORS.

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 949 · Decided: 27-08-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

MIS. K. GANESH SHET 
A 
v. 
SRI A.K. JAY ARAMA SHEKA AND ORS. 
AUGUST 27, 2004 
B 
[R.C. LAHOTI, CJ., G.P. MATHUR AND C.K. THAKKER, JJ.) 
Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 : 
S. 2l(J)(j)-Eviction of tenant on ground of illegal sub-letting- C 
Allowed by District Judge-High Court though upholding the finding of 
I illegal subletting, declined relief to landlord observing that original tenant 
having died, sub-tenants holding under his legal representatives deserved 
protection-On appeal, Held, landlord having successfully made out a 
ground for eviction, tenant must be evicted alongwith sub-tenants- D 
Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1999-S. 70. 
The High Court, in a revision against the order of eviction of 
tenant and sub-tenants in the proceedings under s. 21(1)(f) of the 
Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, although upheld the finding of E 
illegal subletting recorded by the District Judge, yet declined relief of 
eviction to the landlord holding that since the original tenant had died, 
the sub-tenants, who were holding under his legal representatives, 
deserved to be shown mercy. The High Court drew support from the 
decision in A.S. Sulochana's case**. 
F 
Allowing the appeals of the landlord, the Court 
HELD : 1. In view of the decision in Mis. Mahendra Saree 
Emporium*, these appeals shall not abate and shall be decided as if the G 
Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1999 was not passed. [951-C-D) 
*Mis. Mahendra Saree Emporium v. G. V. Srinivasa Murthy, (Civil 
Appeal No. 6296 of 1998 decided by Supreme Court on August 27, 
2004, relied on. 
949 
H 
950 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
2. The finding that the sub-tenancy was created without the 
B 
c 
consent of the landlord has been recorded by the District Judge on 
appreciation of evidence within his jurisdiction and has been upheld 
by the High Court. The legal consequence must, therefore, follow. The 
tenant must be evicted along with the sub-tenants. (951-G-H) 
**A.S. Sulochana v. C. Dharmalingam, (1987] I SCC 180, held 
overruled in Parvinder Singh v. Renu Gautam and Ors., (2004) 4 SCC 
794. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 
Civil Appeal Nos. 1440-
1441 of 2004. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.2.2001 of the Kamataka High 
D Court in H.R.R.P No. 1484 of 1996. 
R.S. Hegde, Ms. Savitri Pandey, Chandra Prakash and P.P. Singh for 
the Appellants. 
E 
G.V. Chandrashekhar and T.N. Rao for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
R.C. LAHOTI, CJ. : Proceedings for eviction of tenant on the 
F ground available under Section 2 l(l)(f) of the Kamataka Rent Control Act, 
1961 (hereinafter, the Act for short) were initiated. The Trial Court 
dismissed the claim for eviction. The landlord pr~ferred revision before 
the Court of District Judge which was allowed and the tenant and the sub-
tenants were directed to be evicted. The two sub-tenants preferred revisions 
G in the High Court. The High Court has upheld the finding of fact recorded 
by the District Judge that the premises were sub-let without the consent 
of the landlord. 
However, still the High Court has granted relief to the 
sub-tenants and denied relief of eviction to the landlord. The High Court 
has formed an opinion that in spite of the sub-tenants having been illegally 
H inducted into the premises, the original tenant had died and the sub-tenants 
K. GANESH SHET v. A.K. JAY ARAMA SHEKA [LAHOTI, CJ.] 
951 
were holding under the legal representatives of the original tenant and the A 
sub-tenants deserved to be shown mercy. The High Court directed the rent 
which was being paid by the sub-tenants at the rate of Rs. 600 per month 
to be enhanced to Rs. 1000 per month and that too directly to the landlord 
by passing the tenant and having done so directed the claim for eviction 
to be dismissed. Consequently, these two appeals by special leave have B 
been filed by the landlord. 
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties we are satisfied that 
the judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained. 
c 
During the pendency of these appeals, the Act of 1961 has been 
repealed and replaced by the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1999 with effect 
from 31.12.1999. Dealing with Section 70 of the New Act we have today 
held in Mis Mahendra Saree Emporium v. G. V. Srinivasa Murthy, (Civil 
Appeal No.6296 of 1998 decided on August 27, 2004) that these appeals D 
shall not abate and shall be heard and decided as if the 1999 Act was not 
passed. 
The sole question which arises for decision
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.