PAPINAYAKANAHALLI VENKANNA Vs. JANADRI V ENKANNA SETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A Division Bench of this Court, to whom the above civil revision petition was referred by a Single Judge under S. 9 of the High Court Act, has referred the following question of law for opinion of the Full Bench:

(2.) The order of reference was made on 11th July, 1979. Sri Suresh S. Joshi learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the above question has to be answered in the negative in view of the recent decision of thp Supreme Court in V. Dhanapal Chettiar v. Yesodai Ammal (AIR 1979 SC 1745) decided on 23rd August 1979. The said decision sets at rest the controversial question relating to the necessity or otherwise of quit notice terminating the tenancy contractual or otherwise in respect of a building, eviction from which is regulated by the provisions of all the State Rent Control Legislations. The Supreme Court has held that as the eviction from buildings is regulated and controlled by law, there is no question of termination of tenancy by the issue of a quit notice under S. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. Hence the question has to be answered in the negative following the aforesaid decision.

(3.) Sri B. P. Holla, learned counsel for the respondent, nevertheless maintained that the aforesaid judgment cannot be taken as binding- authority for the following reasons: (i) As the relevant provisions of the Karnataka Rent Control Act have not been specifically considered and interpreted, the general observations made in the aforesaid decision cannot be considered as a binding precedent under Art. 141 of the Constitution. (ii) The specific language used in the Karnataka Rent Control Act taken as a whole does require the termination of tenancy in the manner prescribed under S. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. In support of the first submission he relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Raval & Co. v. K. G. Ramachandran ( AIR 1974 SC 818) in which it is observed that general observations made in any decision of the Supreme Court do not constitute precedent on the interpretation of a provision of a statute unless the particular provision is specifically considered and interpreted. In support of the second submission he relied on S. 2(r) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, which defines the word 'tenant' as including a person continuing in possession after termination of tenancy, S. 20(3) of the said Act which provides that receipt of Tent deposited under S. 19 by the landlord shall not operate as a waiver of quit notice given by the landlord and S. 21(e) which provides the act of giving notice to quit by a tenant to the landlord as a ground for eviction, in cases where the landlord has taken steps to sell or let the premises or has taken such steps, which in the opinion of the Court would seriously prejudice him if he could not obtain possession of the premises.