BANGALORE COMPANY BANG\ALORE Vs. T V BALASUBRAMANYAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is respondent-tenants' revision petition filed under Section 50 (1) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the act"), questioning the correctness of the order dated 20th of january, 1997 made in h. r. c. No. 966 of 1992 by the court of vi additional small cause judge at Bangalore, directing eviction of the petitioners herein under Section 21 (1x0 of the act.

(2.) THE facts that may be relevant for disposal of the petition may be briefly stated as follows: (a) the respondents herein, who are the landlords of the premises bearing portion of No. 1, new No. 28/3, kanakapura road, Bangalore, which consists of a workshop with asbestos roofing sheds and other super structure situated thereon (hereinafter referred to as "the petition schedule premises"), instituted proceedings against the petitioners for their eviction on two grounds firstly on the ground that the respondents reasonably and bona fide required the petition schedule premises for their use and occupation i. e. , for the purpose of their business; and secondly on the ground that the first petitioner, who had taken the premises in question on lease for a period of five years by means of a registered lease deed and who continued as a statutory tenant in the petition schedule premises after the expiry of the lease period, in contravention of the terms of the lease and without the written consent of the respondents, subleased the petition schedule premises to the second petitioner; and, therefore, the petitioners are liable to be evicted under section 21 (1) (h) and (f) of the act. (b) since the first petitioner did not appear before the learned small cause judge in the course of the proceedings, he was placed ex parte. This is clear from the observation made by the learned judge in paragraph 3 of the order. However, the second petitioner resisted the claim of the respondents contending, inter alia, that the claim made by the respondents that the petition schedule premises is required by them for their bona fide use and occupation, is not true and genuine and their further claim that the first petitioner subleased the petition schedule premises to the second petitioner is also not correct. In the course of the proceedings, the first respondent examined himself as P. W. 1 and his son one kailash chandra sudarshan was examined as P. W. 2 and number of documents were also marked in support of the case of the respondents. The second petitioner herein examined himself as r. w. 1 and one nagesh kumar, who is the brother-in-law of the second petitioner and who was also working as chief executive of the first petitioner, was examined as r. w. 2. One goutham was examined as r. w. 3. (c) the learned small cause judge, after considering the evidence on record, while rejecting the claim of the respondents for eviction of the petitioners under Section 21 (1) (h) of the Act, has passed the order under revision directing eviction of the petitioners under Section 21 (1) (f) of the act on the ground that the petition schedule premises was subleased by the first petitioner to the second petitioner without the written consent of the respondents. The said finding is challenged in this revision petition.

(3.) SRI r. b. sadashivappa, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the finding recorded by the learned small cause judge that the first petitioner has subleased the petition schedule premises, is erroneous in law and the said finding has been recorded in total disregard to the evidence on record and misunderstanding of Section 21 (1) (f) of the act. Elaborating this submission, the learned counsel pointed out that the admission of P. W. 1 shows that the second petitioner was paying rent to the first respondent and, therefore, the finding recorded by the learned judge that the first petitioner has subleased the petition schedule premises in favour of the second petitioner is erroneous in law. According to the learned counsel, since the second petitioner has purchased the running business concern carried on by the first petitioner in the petition schedule premises, it is not a case of sublease.