MRS. ZAKIYA BEGUM & ORS. versus MRS. SHANAZ ALI & ORS.

Citation: [2010] 9 S.C.R. 692 · Decided: 09-08-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.S. SINGHVI · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2010] 9 S.C.R. 692 
A 
MRS. ZAKIYA BEGUM & ORS. 
8 
v. 
MRS. SHANAZ ALI & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 6397 of 2010) 
AUGUST 9, 2010 
[G.S. SINGHVI AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.] 
Rent Control and Eviction: 
C 
Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 - ss. 6, 7, 2(3)(e) and 70 -
Premises let out at a monthly rent of Rs.40001- - Eviction 
proceedings initiated under the 1961 Act-Applicability of the 
1999 Act - Held: The 1999 Act is not applicable to the 
eviction proceedings initiated under the 1961 Act -
Tenant 
0 
paying deemed rent or standard rent above Rs.35001- for the 
tenanted premises on the day of commencement of the 1999 
Act is outside the purview of the Act - Landlord and tenant 
entered into an agreement prior to the commencement of the 
1999 Act, that agreed rent of the premises would be Rs. 4, 0001 
- - Thus, there is no need to fix standard rent and the agreed 
E rent is the deemed rent - Order of Court of Small Causes as 
upheld by High Court that since monthly rent of premises 
exceeded Rs. 35001-, the 1999 Act was not applicable and 
thus, the said court had no jurisdiction and the eviction 
petition was not maintainable, is upheld - Karnataka Rent 
F Control Act, 1961 - Interpretation of Statutes - Explanation 
to a Section - Construction of 
The appellants owned certain property. They let out 
the said premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 4000/- to the 
G respondents Thereafter, the appellants filed an eviction 
petition against the respondents u/s. 21 (1 )(h) and (f) of 
the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961. The respondents-
tenants filed an interim application before the Court of 
Small Causes. It was contended that during the pendency 
H 
692 
ZAKIYA BEGUM & ORS. v. SHANAZ ALI & ORS. 
693 
of the eviction proceedings, the Karnataka Rent Act, 
A 
1999 repealed the 1961 Act and the eviction proceeding 
would be dealt with under the 1999 Act; that the 1999 Rent 
Act was not applicable to premises where the monthly 
rental exceeded Rs. 3500/-., and as such the eviction 
proceedings were not maintainable in respect of the 
B 
premises under the 1999 Rent Act, thus, the Court of Small 
Causes had no jurisdiction to try the sai.d eviction 
proceedings and the petition was not maintainable. The 
appellants amended the eviction proceeding in 
accordance with the 1999 Act. The Court of Small Causes c 
allowed the interim application. The appellants 
challenged the said order. The High Court dismissed the 
revision petition. Therefore, the appellants-landlord filed 
the instant appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. It is very clear from Section 70 of the 
Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 that unless proceedings 
initiated under Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 has 
reached the stage of execution of a decree, 1961 Act will 
have no application to other eviction proceedings which 
are pending , prior to the exe~ution stage, on the date of 
coming into effect of the 19~:; Act. [Para 12] [697-B-C] 
1.2. The Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 is a socio-economic 
legislative measure and ·is designed to give protection to 
certain classes of tenants. A tenant who is paying 
deemed rent or standard rent above Rs.3500/- in respect 
of his tenanted premises on the day of commencement 
D 
E 
F 
of the new Act is outside the purview of the Act. [Para 23] 
[703-E-F] 
G 
1.3. Under Section 6 of the 1999 Act, rent payable in 
respect to the premises is the rent agreed between the 
landlord and tenant as enhanced in the manner provided 
in the Third Schedule or the standard rent as specified 
H 
694 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 9 S.C.R. 
A under section 7 and revised under section 9 of the Act. 
A perusal of the explanation to section 2(3)(e) would 
show that the deemed rent refers to sections 7 and 9 of 
1999 Rent Act. [Para 24, 26] [703-G; 704-C] 
8 
1.4. In the instant case, the agreed rent is Rs.4,0001-
which comes within the definition of section 6(1)(a) and 
the said agreement was admittedly entered into between 
the appellants and respondents prior to the 
commencement of the 1999 Rent Act. In a case where 
C there is an admitted agreed rent, the question of fixation 
of standard rent does not arise. [Paras 27 and 28] [704-
C-D] 
1.5. An explanation to a Section should normally be 
read to "harmonise with and clear up any ambiguity in 
D the main Section" and normally not to widen its ambit. 
[Para 29] [704-E] 
Bihta Co-operative Development and Cane Marketing 
Union Ltd., and Anr. vs. Bank of Bihar and others AIR 1967 
E SC 389; Mis.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.