SHAHWAR BASHEER Vs. VEENA MOHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these petitions give rise to a common question of law for my consideration. The question is, whether by operation of Section 5 of the karnataka Rent Act, 1999 ('the present Act' for short), the landlords of the premises involved in these petitions are entitled to recover possession of the premises without the need to take recourse to Section 27 of the Act.

(2.) LET me first refer to the background which has given rise to this question. The Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 ('the repealed Act', for short), provided for inheritability of tenancy by the legal representatives of the original tenant. The inheritance was automatic and there was no end for this inheritance, in that, after the wife or husband of the original tenant, the sons and daughters and after them the grandson and granddaughters could stake claim because the repealed Act recognised them all as statutory tenants by including in the definition of the term, 'tenant the surviving spouse or any son or daughter or father or mother or a deceased tenant who had been living with the tenant in the premises as a member of the tenant's family upto the death of the tenant and a person continuing in possession after the termination of the tenancy in his favour. As the definition included in its sweep every conceivable member of the family, there was no end to the right of inheritance of the tenancy and if the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation the only course open to him was to move the Court for eviction under any of the available grounds under Section 21 of the repealed act. The Legislature having felt the need to provide for substantive and procedural provisions for eviction on grounds other than those contained in Section 21 of the repealed Act, brought about an all new legislation viz. , the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 by enacting Act No. 34 of 2001 which came into force with effect from 31st December, 2001. The present Act aims at streamlining and restructuring the judicative apparatus in order to impart operational speed and modernize the whole approach in order to bridge the chasm that exists between the right of the landlord to the remedy of recovering possession of the leased premises as and when the need arises and the actual fructification of that remedy. It also classifies certain persons (landlords) into some special groups and treats them differentially by providing to them the benefit of recovering immediate possession. Section 5 of the present Act is one such comprehensive provision enacted with the specific purpose of limiting the inheritability of tenancy to certain specific period, the period of entitlement to the inheritency being different to different successors of the tenant depending on certain facts and circumstances which are enumerated in the provision itself. To better understand the specifics, I quote Section 5 in full. It reads:

(3.) IN all these petitions the premises are in occupation of the successors of the tenants on the termination of the tenancy following the death of the tenant. The question for consideration in all these petitions is whether on the death of the tenants the successors to the tenancy could, even after the expiry of five years from the date of death of the tenant, stake claim for regulation of their eviction under Section 27 which is the corresponding provision to Section 21 of the repealed Act or have they to suffer automatic eviction from the premises as they have ceased to be tenants under the present Act. The central issue therefore to be considered is whether the successors to the tenancy stand stripped of their right to seek protection under Section 27 which regulates eviction of a tenant under the Act, after the expiry of various periods stipulated in section 5 in respect of various classes of persons and subject to the conditions contained thereunder.