N RAJASEKHAR Vs. V N ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The following are the two questions of law referred to the Full Bench for decision under Section 7 of the Karnataka High Court Act:1) Whether mortgagee in possession would be a landlord for the purpose of Section 21(l)(h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961? And 2) Whether a tenant under him would become statutory tenant?

(2.) The brier facts leading to this reference are:-The premises is a garage forming portion of a building bearing No. 4, 1st Cross, Kumarapark West, Bangalore-20. It belongs to the 2nd respondent. The first respondent became the tenant under the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent mortgaged with possession the entire ground-floor of the building bearing Corporation No. 4, including the garage with possession in question under registered Mortgage Deed dated 18-5-1979. At the request of the 2nd respondent, the tenancy in respect of the garage portion was attorned by the 1st respondent in favour of the petitioner-mortgagee. The petitioner filed petition for eviction under Section 21(1)(h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) seeking eviction of the said 1st respondent from the garage portion of the said building No. 4 in HRC.No. 326/ 1981 in the Court of the Small Causes Judge, Bangalore City. The learned Small Causes Judge, Bangalore City, by his order dated 9-2-1983 dismissed the petition filed for eviction holding that the petitioner does not come within the ambit of the word 'landlord' vis-a-vis respondent-1. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed this Civil Revision Petition.

(3.) The learned Single Judge Hakeem, J. by his Order dated 30-9-1986 referred this matter to the Division Bench of this Court for its consideration observing thus:" The main question that arises for consideration is whether a possessory mortgagee can prefer or maintain a claim for eviction of the tenant on the ground under Clause (h) of Section 21(1) of the Act. Since this is a question of law of general importance which arises before this Court frequently, I consider it necessary that the same should be decided by the Division Bench."