R V SHANBOGUE Vs. M VENKATASWAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 15th January, 1969 made in H.R.C.Appeal No.5 of 1968, by which, the learned District Judge, Shimoga, has confirmed the eviction of the petitioner

(2.) The facts leading to this revision petition may briefly be stated: Petitioner as a tenant is in occupation of the premises consisting of two shops with a corridor attached to them situated in Sagar Town. The action was brought to evict the petitioner on various grounds including that he has sublet a portion of the premises to one Amjab Sab for the purpose of having a fruit stall. Both the Courts below have held that the tenant has sub-let a portion of the premises and ordered eviction. The legality or the correctness of this finding is in dispute in this revision petition.

(3.) Section 21(1) (f) of the Mysore Rent Control Act, 1961, omitting the unnecessary portions, reads as follows: "That the tenant has unlawfully sub-let the whole or part of the premises or assigned or transferred in any other manner his interest therein................" From this provision, it is clear that unlawful sub-letting or assigning or transferring tenant's interest in any manner entails the eviction. It is, therefore, necessary to see whether the tenant has sub-let any portion of the schedule premises. The facts proved in the case are as follows: The premises consists of two shops and a corridor facing the road. One of the shops is utilised as a godown and it is always kept closed. In the other, the tenant is carrying on the business in stationery articles. In front of the corridor, there is a public drain. Over the drain and the portion of the corridor in front of the closed shop, wooden planks are placed and on this temporary structure Amjab Sab is keeping the fruits, and one may call it a fruit stall. This is proved by the report Ext.P.5 submitted by P.W.2 the Commissioner appointed for the purpose. The case of the tenant is that even before he took the premises on lease, Amjab Sab was doing the business in fruits in the above stated place and he is not paying any rent and he has also no right over the schedule premises. There is no other evidence with regard to sub-letting. On this evidence, both the courts below have held that sub-letting a portion of the corridor, was proved and the corridor being a part of the schedule premises, the tenant is ordered to be evicted. There is no rinding that the fruit vendor was in exclusive possession of the portion of the corridor.