CHANDRA BAI Vs. TUKARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against the judgment dt.30-6-1973 passed by the II Addl Dist Judge, Dharwar, in HRC App.71 of 1971 setting aside the Order passed in HRC.50 of 1968 by the Addl Munsiff, Hubli and dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under Ss.21(1)(a) and 21(i)(i) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The undisputed facts are that the petitioner is the owner of open site bearing CIS.1858 in Ward V of Hubli and also bearing Municipal HDMC No.19. She has leased out the site to respondent-1 Tukaram since dead. His legal representative, namely, the wife has been brought on record. Tukaram had constructed a structure worth about Rs.400 by 18-5-1964. On 18-5-1964 the petitioner and Tukaram entered into a contract of lease as per Exhibit P1.

(2.) The petitioner filed an application under S.21(1) (a) and (f) of the Act contending that as per Ext.P1 Tukaram had to erect a construction worth about Rs.600, but had failed to erect such a construction and that Tukaram had not paid rental from 18-5-1964 and hence had become a defaulter within the meaning of Sec.21(1) (a) of the Act and lastly that Tukaram had sub-let certain rooms in the building constructed by him on the land to Respts-2 & 3 arid as such was liable to be evicted under Section 21(1)(f) of the Act.

(3.) Sri Tukaram contended that he had leased out two rooms to Respts-2 and 3 and that lease did not amount to sub-letting within the meaning of S.21(1) (f) of the Act and that he had not at all committed default in payment of rent. The learned Munsiff without going into the question whether the rooms admittedly leased by Tukaram to Respts-2 and 3 also included the demised premises under the lease agreement, Ext.P1, held that Tukaram had sub-let the two rooms to Respts-2 and 3. The case of the petitioner under S.21(1) (a) of the Act was not pressed. A decree for eviction was passed on the ground available to the petitioner under Section 21(1)(f) of the Act.