BOMBAY TYRES INTERNATIONAL LIMITED Vs. K S PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is by the tenant in a proceedings under the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961. The case is referred to a Full Bench mainly for determining the question as to whether during the subsistence of contractual tenancy, is it open to a landlord to resort to proceedings under the Karnataka Rent Control Act, for evicting the tenant on satisfying any of the grounds mentioned in S. 2l of the Karnataka Rent Control Act. A Full Bench of this Court in Sri Ramakrishna Theatres Ltd. v. General Investments and Commercial Corporation Ltd., ILR ( 1992) Kant 1296 : (AIR 1993 Kant 90) held that the landlord is not entitled to evict a tenant even on satisfying the conditions mentioned in S. 21 of the Kamataka Rent Control Act, so long as the contractual tenancy subsists. This Full Bench decision was later considered by the Supreme Court in a decision reported in Sri Lakshmi Venkateshwara Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v. Syeda Vajhiunnissa Begum; ILR (1994) Kant 1659. One of the questions to be considered is as to whether the Full Bench decision of this Court, mentioned above, still holds the field in view of the later decision of the Supreme Court in Sri Lakshmi Venkateshwara's case and the matter is referred to a Full Bench mainly to determine that question. As the entire case is referred to a Full Bench, we are disposing of the whole case instead of answering the above question alone.

(2.) This revision arises out of an application by the landlord-respondents for eviction of the revision petitioner-tenant on the ground mentioned in S. 21 (1)(h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act. The case of the landlords are; that they are the owners of the schedule property bearing Municipal No. 22 (Old No. 2/1), Kasturba Road, Bangalore, after the demise of their mother Singaramma. It is the case of the landlords that their mother leased out the property in favour of M/s. Firestone and Rubber Company of India Pvt. Ltd., by executing a registered lease deed dated 10-3-1978. The revision petitioner have taken over the above company and they are using the premises for running their local office at Bangalore. The petitioners alleged that, as per covenant No. 4 of the above said lease, tenants have committed default in not paying the rent for the months of April to August, 1984 and accordingly, they sent a notice dated 22-8,1994 calling upon the tenants/respondents to pay the arrears of rent and in case, they have not paid the amount determining the lease of the respondents. But, in spite of the abovesaid notice, the tenants respondents have not paid the rent and by the notice dated 29-9-1984, the petitioners terminated the tenancy of the respondents and made a demand to deliver vacant possession of the premises.

(3.) The landlords have formed a partnership firm under the name and style of M/s. Seethalakshmi Hall (Retail) and M/s. Seethalakshmi Hall (Wholesale) and they are doing extensive silk business and the family of the landlords are doing silk business for the last over 60 years, they being the pioneers in silk business and leading silk merchants in Bangalore City. It is the case of the landlords that, at present, they are doing the silk business in a rented premises bearing No. 227 (Old No. 320) situated at Old Taluka Katcheri Road, Chickpet, Bangalore. The landlord of that building has filed an eviction petition in H.R.C. No. 148 of 1988 for evicting them and accordingly, they require the petition schedule premises for their bona fide use and occupation and to do their business in a larger area. It is also the case of the landlords that the petition schedule premises is most suitable for their silk business as it is situated in the most prestigious commercial area of Bangalore City and they intend to expand their business and that their requirement is reasonable and bona fide. It is further stated by the petitioners-landlords that if an order of eviction is not passed, more hardship will be caused to them and in case, they are evicted from the premises, wherein, they are carrying on the business, in pursuance to the order, passed in H.R.C. No. 148/88, they will be deprived of their livelihood and source of income and they intend to do their business in their own premises. It is further stated by them that the order of eviction, even if passed, no hardship will be caused to the tenants. On these allegations, the petition was filed under S.21 (1)(h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, for evicting the tenants from the premises.