DEVAKIAMMAL Vs. NATARAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order in H. R. C. NO. 254/2004 dated 5th January 2006 on the file of II Additional Small Causes Judge, Bangalore.

(2.) PETITIONER had filed a petition under Section 27 sub-section (2) clauses (j) and (r) and Section 31 of the Karnataka Rent Act 1999 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') claiming that, she is a landlord of non-residential premises measuring 8. 5 feet x 6. 5 feet and alleged that, the husband of the petitioner had taken the said premises on lease from the lessor with a consent to sublet. The respondent is sub-lessee under the petitioner on monthly rent of Rs. 400/ -. Petitioner sought for eviction of the respondent on the ground that, her son is running a hotel in the adjacent portion and he requires the premises for expansion of his business and he is facing inconvenience in doing the business on account of lack of adequate space. Though the petitioner approached respondent for several times for vacating the premises, he did not heed to her request. Though the respondent was served before the trial Court, he remained unrepresented and he was placed ex parte.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that, Section 3 clause (e) of the Act does not omit the sub-tenants. Though Section 3 clause (e) does not refer to tenant of sub-tenant, but it is an inclusive definition. He referred to the definition of 'tenant' under Section 3 clause (n) of the Act and submitted that, the tenant includes the sub-tenants and further submitted that, reading of both the definitions clearly indicates that, the landlord includes the tenant of the sub-tenant. In this regard, he also referred to Section 21 (1) (h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act and submited that, the explanation under Section 21 (4) specifically excludes a rent-farmer or rent- collector or estate-manager for the purpose of eviction of tenants under clause (h) of Section 21 (1) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act. He further submitted that by reading of these provisions, it is clear that, the definition of 'landlord' under Section 2 (e) of the Act has to be read in consonance with the definition of 'tenant' under Section 3 (n) of the Act harmonious construction of these two provisions read with Section 27 do not exclude the lessee of sub-lessee, who has power to lease the premises and submitted that, for the purpose of eviction of sub-lessee, the lessee is landlord and it cannot be read otherwise.