R KESHAVAYYA Vs. R NARASIMHA PRABHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is under S.50 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961. It is essentially concerned with the validity of the notice to quit issued by the landlord to his tenant. From the facts I select those necessary for my decision.

(2.) By Ext.P3 the lease deed d/15th Octr, 1948, the premises belonging to the petitioners ('the landlord') were leased to respondent 1 ('the tenant') for a period of 10 years on an annual rent at Rs.100 payable by 15th of Octr every year. It was agreed thereunder that the tenant could use the premises for the purpose of his timber trade with liberty to put up any temporary shed or building in connection with that trade; but after the period of lease he should remove the construction at his own cost and surrender the vacant premises. The lease contained a stipulation regarding the notice. It stated that if the landlord wanted the premises after 5 years from the date of the lease for the purpose of construing a house for his own use, he could ask for the premises after giving the tenant six months' notice. That occasion, however, did not arise for the landlord The lease, therefore, continued for a full term of 10 years and it came to an end on 15th Octr, 1958. The landlord did not ask the, tenant to vacate the premises. He was allowed to remain in possession as a tenant holding over On 15th Octr, 1965 the tenant agreed to pay rent at the rate of Rs.125 per year. Accordingly, as endorsement was made on the lease deed Ext.P3. Ever since then he was paying that rate of rent. On 11th May, 1969 the landlord issued a notice to the tenant asking him to surrender vacant possession of the premises after six months. The notice was served on the tenant on 19th Novr, 1969. The tenant refused to surrender the premises The landlord, therefore, brought an action for eviction under the provisions of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 stating that the premises are reasonably and bona fide required by him for his persona] use and occupation. The Munsiff's Court before whom the action was brought, held in favour of the landlord and made an order of eviction against the tenant.

(3.) Upon appeal preferred by the tenant, the learned Dist Judge reversed the order of eviction. He did not consider the merits of the appeal. He rested his conclusion only on the validity of the quit notice. He held that the notice issued on 11th May, 1969 asking the tenant to surrender possession of the premises within six months thereafter did not end with the year of tenancy and therefore was invalid under Sec. 106 of the Transfer of Prcperty Act.