BALUMAL P SETH Vs. G GIRIYAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) these three revision petitions arise out of the order of the first additional small causes judge, Bangalore, dated 3rd august, 1989 in h.r.c. No. 392/1986. The learned judge by his impugned order passed an order of eviction of the petitioners herein on a finding that they were the sub-tenants of the tenant against whom a ground for eviction under Section 21(l)(p) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, hereinafter referred to as 'the act', was made out by the landlords. Since the tenant was liable to be evicted, the petitioners, who were his subtenants were also liable to be evicted from the premises in question. The question involved in the three revision petitions before me being identical, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order:

(2.) a few facts which are not in dispute may be stated thus: - one gangadharappa was the owner of a vacant site bearing old No. 207 (late No. 218) current No. 6, situated at srinivasa mandir road, balepet cross, Bangalore. Respondents-1 to 3 in these petitions are the successors in interest of the aforesaid gangadharappa. They shall hereafter be referred to as 'the landlords'. Gangadharappa executed a lease deed in favour of ananth rai l. Parekh - respondent No. 4 in these petitions, hereinafter referred to as 'the tenant'. By the said deed of lease, gangadharappa demised the petition schedule plot of land for a period of 20 years on a monthly rent of Rs. 200/- to the aforesaid tenant. It is not necessary to refer to the manner of payment envisaged under the said deed of lease as the same is not material. However, the lease deed provided that the tenant shall construct a building according to the plan got sanctioned by the corporation by gangadharappa. The term of the lease was 20 years. The building was to be constructed by the tenant at his own expense, and apart from the ground floor and the first floor as shown in the plan, the tenant was at liberty to construct other storeys thereon and use it for himself and for others at his instance according to his convenience. After the expiry of 20 years the tenant was to deliver possession of the building as it then stood with atleast the ground floor and the first floor, to gangadharappa or his successors in interest without any claim from the lessee or his successors in interest. The building thus delivered was to be the absolute property of the aforesaid gangadharappa or his successors in interest. The tenant was to pay the building tax and water charges as well as the electric charges to the concerned departments till the expiry of the lease. The building tax was to be paid in the name of the landlord, namely, gangadharappa. The tenant was authorised to demolish the existing building on the schedule site at his expense. The lease deed also provided as follows: "(5) the lessee may let or sublet any portion or the whole of the premises to anybody whomsoever he likes. But the lessee shall deliver possession of the same to the lessor or to his successors-in-interest at the expiry of the lease." It ,is not in dispute that the tenant constructed a building on the aforesaid plot and inducted tenants in portions of the building constructed by him. The petitioners in these petitions are sub-tenants said to have been inducted by the tenant pursuant to the authority given to him to do so under the lease deed, dated 6th of january, 1966. Only the petitioner in c.r.p. No. 6042/1989 claimed that the tenant had inducted one dinesh b. Mulani as a sub-tenant and that the petitioner was only a consulting optician, who came to the premises for his professional work. The real tenant was the aforesaid dinesh b. Mulani and not the petitioner. It is not necessary to go into this question because even if it is assumed that the petitioner was inducted as a sub-tenant by the tenant, the result of the petition will be no different. It may be observed that gangadharappa died before the expiry of the term of the lease and the landlords became the owners of the suit plot as his successors-in-interest.

(3.) the landlords gave notice to the tenanton 1-8-1984, as also to the petitioners herein, calling upon them to handover vacant possession of the building on 6-1-1986, as the term of 20 years fixed under the lease was to expire on that date. The tenant and the sub-tenants did not respond to the said notice nor did they vacate the premises despite another notice dated 19-1-1986.