K S RANGAIAH SETTY Vs. L S VASUDEVAMURTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) L.S.Vasudevamurthy filed an application under S.21(1) provisos (a) and (h) of the Karnataka Bent Control Act, for eviction of K.S.Rangaiah Setty from the schedule premises in HRC.441/65 on the file of the First Munsiff, Bangalore. The contention of the landlord was that the tenant had fallen due for rent which was in arrears and that the schedule premises were bonafide and reasonably required for his use and occupation. The landlord gave a notice to quit, Ext.P2, dt.1-10-64 which inter-alia stated :

(2.) The tenant contested that so much rent was not due, that the notice to quit was invalid, that the landlord never required the premises for his bonafide and reasonable use and occupation. On comparative hardship it was also pleaded that the tenant is not liable to be evicted.

(3.) During the pendency of the petition under S.21, K.S.Rangaiah Setty died and his legal representative L.R.Viswanath who is his son, was brought on the record. It was contended before the learned Munsiff that L.R.Viswanath was not a tenant as defined in S.3(r) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act. 1961, as the schedule premises were non-residential and L.R.Viswanath was not residing in the schedule premises along with his father. For this, assistance was taken from Hamid Shah v. Seshagiri, (1973) 1 MysLJ. 127, and M. V. Sundararaj V. Kamalamma , ILR 1975 Kar.2028= (1975) 2 KarLJ. 459. It was contended that the word 'living' in S.3(r) of the Act is in the context a clear indication of what is commonly known as residence. The legal effect will be that in a business premises the legal representative although a son cannot be stated to be living with the father who was a statutory tenant. The protection which the father had against dispossession by the landlord was personal to him and could not be transmitted to his legal heir who answers the description of legal representative. The learned Judge further held that by virtue of S.51 although the landlord is enabled to continue the proceeding against the son, the latter is deprived of his right to claim possession as he derives no title from his father being a statutory tenant. The contention found favour with the learned Munsiff and holding that a reasonable and bonafide requirement of the landlord was proved, the petition was allowed. The question as to the validity of the notice to quit was also held in favour of the landlord. Thereafter, the tenant came in appeal before the learned Dist Judge, but remained unsuccessful. The findings of the learned Munsiff were reiterated on all the points Now. the petitioner-tenant has come up in revision.