SREE NATARAJA FLOUR MILLS Vs. VENKATARATHNAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these two revisions filed under Section 50 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, the tenants have sought to challenge the legality and correctness of the orders of eviction dated 24-6-1981 and 3-10-1980 passed by the XI Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore City, and the III Additional Civil Judge, Bangalore City, in H.R.C. No. 23 of 1980 and H.R.C. No. 400 of 1975, respectively, on their file.

(2.) Two non-residential shop premises bearing Nos. 57 and 58 situated in Old Taragupet, Bangalore, in occupation of the petitioners are the subject of dispute. They originally belonged to three sisters, namely, Girijamma, Renuka and Sarvamangala, daughters of Veeranna Gubbi, and they were let out together as one unit to Petitioner-1 herein Sree Nataraja Flour Mills and Perfumery Works, on a monthly rent of Rs. 170/-. Petitioner-2 M. A. Narayana Murthy, his father M. V. Aswathanarayana Shetty and B. K. Srinivasa Murthy (Respondent-6 in H R C proceedings) were originally partners of the firm. Lateron Petitioner-3 M. A. Nagaraja Gupta and Petitioner-4 M. A. Krishna Murthy also joined as partners of the firm in the year 1971. The two brothers P. Venkatarathnaiah, Respondent in CRP. 3975/81 and P. Ramachandra Respondent in CRP. 610/1981, who have been carrying on a partnership business in the name and style as City Traders in premises No. 148, Old Taragupet, Bangalore-53, being under the thereat of eviction--their landlord having brought proceedings for their eviction--thought of dissolving their partnership business and starting their new business, and purchased the two shop premises in question under separate sale deeds dated 30-5-1974 from the original owners. While the former purchased permises No. 57, the latter purchased premises No. 58 having apportioned the rent at the rate of Rs. 70/- and Rs. 100/- per month respectively representing the rent of the premises bearing Nos. 57 and 58, they called upon the petitioners-2 to 4 to pay them the rent of the premises accordingly. Petitioners-2 to 4 went on paying the rent of the premises accordingly to them separately, but, however, under protest questioning the validity of the sale deeds and splitting up of the tenancy. When the business of the petitioner-1 firm was shifted on to premises No. 36, K. V. Temple Street, Bangalore-5, petitioner No. 5 Nataraja Trading Company continued the business in the two shop premises. When the 5th petitioner claiming to be the tenant of the two premises offered to pay the rent, the respondent refused to accept on the plea that petitioner-5 was not the tenant of the premises and brought proceedings for eviction. While P. Ramachandraiah, respondent in CRP 610/81 brought the proceedings for eviction in HRC. No. 400/75 on the grounds mentioned in Clauses (h) and (f) of Sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Act, i.e. not only he required the shop premises No. 58 reasonably and bonafide for his personal use and occupation for carrying on his business, but because of the sub-lease of the premises in favour of petitioner-5 Nataraja Trading Company he was entitled for possession of the premises, P. Venkatarathnaiah, respondent in CRP. 3975/81, brought proceedings in HRC. No. 23 of 1980 on the same two grounds as also on the ground mentioned in Clause (p) of Sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Act, that is to say that the business of the firm Nataraja Flour Mills and Perfumery Works having been shifted on to its own building in No. 36, K.V. Temple Street, Bangalore-53, he was entitled to possession of the premises.

(3.) The petitioners who resisted the claim of the landlord-respondents denied either the two premises in question were required by them for their respective business or there was any sub-lease as alleged. On the other hand, they contended as the rent in respect of the two premises was being paid out of the fund of petitioner-5 firm, it was petitioner-5 who was the tenant of the premises. They also contended further that the tenancy in respect of the two premises being one and indivisible, the respondents could not seek their eviction separately and the proceedings for eviction as brought by them separately were not maintainable in view of the provisions of Section 109 of the Tarnsfer of Property Act.