K SRINIVASA RAO Vs. K M NARASIMHAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against a judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High court by special leave granted under Article 136 of the Constitution.

(2.) Respondent 1 is the landlord and K. Gopal Krishna to whom notice was given by this court and has appeared pursuant thereto is the person who was inducted as a tenant by respondent 1 in the said premises immediately on an appeal by respondent 1 being allowed by the First Additional District Judge, Bangalore as set out hereinafter. We direct that K. Gopal Krishna be joined as respondent 2 in the appeal.

(3.) The appellant was one of the eight tenants in the building belonging to respondent I, in respect of a shop admeasuring 9 x 17'. The shop of the appellant was one of the four shops on the ground floor of the building facing Belepet Main Road, Bangalore City. The other premises in the said building comprised four office premises on the first floor. Respondent 1 filed eight eviction petitions in the court of the First Munsiff, Bangalore seeking eviction of the tenants in the said building on the ground that the building was bona fide required by him for the immediate demolition and reconstruction as contemplated under S. 21 (1 (j) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Karnataka Rent Act"). In the eviction petition against the appellant, respondent 1 specifically stated that the appellant might occupy the premises corresponding to the original tenement in the new building after it was built. It may be mentioned that subsequently, respondent 1 filed an application for amending the averment in the eviction petition to delete the words 'corresponding portion'. He also filed an application for leave to withdraw his offer set out earlier. Both these applications were rejected. The appellant and one other tenant filed memoranda consenting to a decree being passed in pursuance of Section 21 (1 (j) of the Karnataka Rent Act. Pursuant to the memorandum filed by the appellant, wherein it was stated that the key was also handed over to the landlord, the court passed an order allowing the eviction petition against the appellant under Section 21 (l) (j) of the Karnataka Rent Act. After the reconstruction of the building was commenced, the appellant gave a notice to respondent 1 of his intention to occupy the corresponding shop in. the new building and stated that he was agreeable to pay the fair rent in respect of the said shop as contemplated under Section 27 of the Karnataka Rent Act. It may be mentioned that,in the meantime, respondent 1 got the plans of the proposed new building altered from time to time and in these revised plans dimensions of the shops proposed to be constructed in the new building were altered. In the meantime, curiously enough, respondent 1 who had got the eviction decree filed an appeal in the court of the First Additional District Judge, Bangalore, challenging the eviction decree in terms of S. 21 (l) (j) of the Karnataka Rent Act passed by the First Munsiff, Bangalore on the ground that the said decree had been passed by consent and the court had no jurisdiction to pass any decree by consent under S. 21 (l) (j) of the Karnataka Rent Act. This appeal was allowed by the learned Additional District Judge. Immediately on the appeal being allowed, respondent 1 inducted respondent 2 as the tenant in a shop in the new or reconstructed building reasonably corresponding to the shop occupied by the appellant in the old building and respondent 2 started business therein in the name and style of Sri Cutpiece Centre. The appellant preferred a revision petition to the High court against this decision. In the said revision petition, the appellant has joined as respondent 2, K. Gopala Krishna. The said revision petition was allowed by the High court. The High court inter alia held that the decree passed by the learned Munsiff under S. 21 (l) (j) of the Karnataka Rent Act was not a decree passed by consent but was a valid decree passed by a competent court after application of mind. In respect of the objections raised by respondent 2, it was held by the High court that since the demolition and reconstruction were in pursuance of an order of eviction passed under sub-clause (j) of S. 21 (1 of the Karnataka Rent Act, there cannot be any doubt that the landlord is liable to place the tenants in vacant possession of the reconstructed building as provided in the Act. It was further held that since the lease in favour of respondent 2 came into existence and respondent 2 occupied the new building during the pendency of the proceedings arising out of the landlords eviction petition under S. 21 (l) (j) of the Karnataka Rent Act, the rights of respondent 2 are subject to the rights of the original tenants conferred on them under S. 27 and 28 of the Karnataka Rent Act. (See : K. Sreenivasa Rao v. K. M. Narasimhiah. )