MALLIKARJUN VIRAPPA Vs. GOVIND WAMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision under S.50 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 is directed against the judgment of the II Addl Dist Judge, Belgaum, reversing on appeal the judgment of the II Addl Munsiff of that district, and thereby dismissing the petition under S.21(1)(h) of the landlord Mallikarjun Irappa Puned in respect of the premises which are in occupation of Govind Waman Kulkarni, the tenant respondent. Before the learned Munsiff, it was alleged that the petitioner-landlord needed the premises for his reasonable and bona fide occupation and that he successfully determined the tenancy by a notice to quit. The learned Munsiff found that the premises were reasonably and bona fide required by the landlord and the notice to quit was not required, because the tenancy was statutory and accordingly he allowed the petition under S.21(1)(h). Thereafter, the tenant came in appeal before the- learned Dist Judge and there he succeeded. It was held that although reasonable and bona fide requirement of the landlord was proved, yet the tenancy was contractual and a valid notice to quit was not given. On that ground, the appeal was allowed, and the petition under S.21(1)(h) was dismissed. Against that judgment of the learned Dist Judge, the present revision is filed by the petitioner-landlord.

(2.) The sole contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner referred to the question as to the statutory tenancy. It was strenuously contended that in view of Ex.P1, which was a lease deed executed by the tenant on 28-3-1957 in favour of the father of the landlord, the period of tenancy fixed was six months and since that period expired on 28-9-1957, the tenant became a statutory tenant and as such a notice to quit was not required to be given. The learned Dist Judge has repelled that finding on several grounds. He referred to the averments made in the petition where the landlord had specifically pleaded in paragraph 2 :

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner-landlord relied on several decisions pertaining to statutory tenancy and the ratio of these decisions is undoubtedly this, that a notice, to quit is not required for a statutory tenant. There can be no quarrel with that proposition. But in a case which is purely based on contractual tenancy, the tenant never assumes the legal character of a statutory tenant. At the same time it is held that a notice to quit will be a necessary requirement before an application under S.21 (1) is filed in Court. In Ganga Dutt Murarka v. Kartik Chandra Das, AIR. 1961 SC. 1067, relied upon by the learned Counsel, their Lordships held that there is no prohibition against a landlord entering into a contractual tenancy with the tenant whose right of occupation is determined and who remains in occupation by virtue of the statutory immunity. In the instant case, in fact, the lease Ext.P1 remained totally ineffective, and either the previous contract of tenancy continued or a,t any rate, it was renewed after the expiry of the lease period. That was a clear indication from the statements made in the pleadings and also, a clear inference to that effect is to be drawn from the evidence adduced. In Anand Nivas P Ltd v. Anandji Kalyanji's Pedhi, AIR. 1965 SC. 414, a similar indication was given by their Lordships as per the following. observation : " But with the determination of the lease, unless the tenant acquires the right of a tenant holding over, by acceptance ol rent or by assent to his continuing in possession by the landlord, the terms and conditions of the lease are extinguished, and the rights of such a person remaining in possession are governed by the statute alone."