SUGUNABAI Vs. TRIPURI SUNDARI TALKIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is plaintiffs' second appeal and it raises a short point of law, viz., whether the stipulation by the tenant to pay the municipal taxes for the premises occupied wquld form part1 of the rent for the premises.

(2.) The landlords instituted a, suit in O.S. No. 116 of 1971 before the Principal Munsiff, Bijapur for eviction of the tenants from the suit premises. According to the landlords, the rental agreed was Rs. 16/- per day in addition to the payment of municipal taxes by the tenants. The tax amounted to Rs. 1,246]- per year. Therefore, the landlords affirmed that the provisions of the Karnatajta Rent Control Act would not be attracted for evicting the tenants under sec. 31 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). They terminated the tenancy and instituted action for eviction of the tenants.

(3.) The tenants; contested the suit putting forward, several contentions. According to them, the municipal tax agreed to be paid and paid by them, did not form part of the rent. As such, the rent was Rs. 16/- per day which amounted to Rs. 480/- per month and as such, the rental was not more than Rs. 500/- per month for the premises which was a cinema theatre and as such, the provisions of the Act did apply. The suit brought before the ordinary court of the land was not tenable. They further contended that all the heirs of the original landlord were not arrayed as plaintiffs. According to them, the notice to quit was; not legal and valid. They further contended that there was an agreement to execute a perpetual lease deed and as such, they could not be evicted under S. 53A of the Transfer of Property Act.