LILLY STELLA RODRIGUES Vs. GIRIJA BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a landlord who sought eviction under Clauses (a) and (f) of Section 21 of the Mysore Rent Control Act, 1961. The original lessee was certain Appaji Rao and when the application for eviction was made, he was dead. Respondents 5 to 11 in this revision petition are all his legal representatives. Respondents 1 to 4 were impleaded as parties to the proceedings in the Court below on the ground that there was an impermissible sub-lease to those four persons by Appaji Rao in the year 1962. The eviction was sought firstly, on the ground that the lessee was in arrears and secondly, on the ground that there was a sub-lease without the landlord's concurrence. The application was resisted by the sub-lessees who asserted that they were the lessees and that Appaji Rao was only a benamidar for them. Neither of the two Courts below accepted the contention that the lease was a benami transaction. But while the Munsiff gave the landlord the order sought by him on both the grounds, that order was reversed by the District Judge who came to the conclusion that there were no arrears and that the sub-lease did not entail eviction.

(2.) Now, that there was a sub-lease in favour of respondents 1 to 4 is no longer disputed. But Mr. Holla appearing for the landlord maintained that that sub-lease did entail eviction under Clause (f) of Section 21 of the Mysore Rent Control Act, 1961 since that sub-lease which was made before that Act came into force, was created contrary to the provisions of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1949. I shall refer to this Act in the course of this order as the Madras Act and to the Mysore Rent Control Act as the Mysore Act.

(3.) Before proceeding to discuss the argument based on the sub-lease, I should notice the submission made by Mr. Holla in criticism of the finding of the District Judge that there were no arrears. Mr. Holla did not dispute that the arrears were deposited within the time allowed. But, according to him, that deposit which was made by the sub-lessees and not by the legal representatives of the principal lessee was not deposit in the eye of law and so, did not entitle the sub-lessees to resist the application for eviction. I do not accede to this contention.