V RAMU Vs. M V VENKATAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner in this case is the landlord who filed an application for eviction of the respondent under the provisions of S.21(1) (a) and (f) of the Mysore House Rent Control Act before the Principal First Munsiff at Bangalore. In the said HRC. Case No.740/65 there were two respondents, D. R. Naidu and M. V. Venkatappa.

(2.) In para 2 oi his petition before the Munsiff the petitioner has stated that 'first respondent on 1-2-1963 executed a lease agreement in respect ot the schedule premises for the purpose of his film business which he was carrying on in the name and style of Shamprasad Movies on a monthly rental of Rs.200 payable on the 1st of every calendar month as agreed to be the date of commencement of tenancy period and the rents were being paid on that date'. It was further alleged that the second respondent was a sub-tenant under the first and that the said tenancy was illegal. In para 5 of the petition the petitioner has clearly averred that 'the petitioner on 12-6-1965 issued a notice to the 1st respondent calling upon him to pay the arrears of rent. The 1st respondent did not comply with the demand made by the petitioner nor sent a reply to the said notice and hence this petition'. 2. Respondent 1 who is the tenant did not appear or contest the application. It was only respondent 2 who was alleged to be the sub-tenant that appeared and contested the proceedings. In his objection statement, he admitted the allegations made in paras 1 and 2 of the petition. Regarding the quit notice, in para 4 of the objection statement he stated that 'regarding the allegations in para 5 the second respondent submits that he is not aware of the notice being issued by the petitioner. This respondent alone is paying the rents regularly'. This was all the denial which was made in the objection statement.

(3.) The learned Munsiff framed points for determination and the two points that were framed are: 1. Whether the petitioner proves that the premises have been sublet by the 1st respondent to the 2nd respondent? 2. Whether the petitioner proves that the respondents are in arrears of rent; if so, how much? It is important to note that the person who contested the application, namely respondent 2, never sought the framing of any issue regarding either the factum or the validity of the notice. Ultimately, the learned Munsiff upholding the contentions of the petitioner on both the grounds, allowed the application under S.21(1) (a) & (f) of the Rent Control Act. Against that order, an appeal HRCA.207/69 was preferred to the District Judge and the learned First Additional District Judge, Bangalore by his judgment dated 29-1-1970, allowed the appeal on the sole ground that the landlord had not issued a notice to quit before filing his present application. It is important to note that on all other contentions, the claim of the alleged sub-tenant has been rejected. It is also interesting to note that before the appellate Court the original tenant was neither impleaded nor did he himself seek for his being impleaded as a respondent. The appeal was by the sub-tenant and his contentions were rejected. But the appeal was allowed on the ground that the tenant who was not before Court should have been given a notice and since there was no notice to him, there was no valid termination of the tenancy and therefore the application was not sustainable in law. The view taken by the learned District Judge was that jurisdiction is vested in an authority to pass an order for eviction, that the jurisdictional fact that must be established was that the landlord had terminated the tenancy and if that was not established, the eviction proceedings must fail. It is the correctness of this order that is challenged before this Court.