MOHANDAS Vs. VIJAYA S KAIKINI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition under Sec.50 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') has been, referred to a Division Bench by Nesargi, J, who has observed that in Ningappa Konerappa v. Shankarappa Shidarayappa, (1975) 1 Kar.LJ. 252. decided by one of us, the effect of Sec.30 did not appear to have been considered vis-a-vis Sec.22 of the the Act. Respondent-1 herein (hereinafter referred to as 'the landlord') presented a petition under Sec.21 of the Act for eviction of respondent-2 herein (hereinafter referred to as "the tenant') and the petitioner herein (hereinafter referred to as 'the sub-tenant') from certain shop premises in Udupi Town. The grounds on which such eviction was sought for, were those specified in clauses(c), (f) and (h) of sub-sec(1) of See.21 of the Act.

(2.) The learned Munsiff granted a decree for eviction on all those three grounds. The separate appeals preferred by the tenant and the subtenant from that decree were dismissed by the District Judge, who upheld the eviction on the grounds specified in clauses (c) & (h) only of Section 21 (1). He held that the sub-letting of the premises which had taken place prior to the coming into force of the Act, could not form a ground for eviction. The sub-tenant has preferred this revision petition. CRP. 586 of 1975. The material facts are briefly these: Originally the petition premises belonged to one Dr.K.Shiva Rao who leased the same to the tenant in the year 1950. After both Dr.Shiva Rao and his wife died, the landlord claimed to have become the owner of the premises as the heir and presented the petition for eviction. In her petition, she alleged, inter alia, that the tenant had made unauthorised constructions in the petition premises and that the landlord and her husband required the premises for their own occupation to start a business therein. Both the Courts below have concurrently held in favour of the landlord on these two points and have also held that greater hardship would result by refusing a decree for eviction than by granting such eviction.

(3.) In this potition, Sri Tukaram S.Pal, leamed Counsel for the petitioner (sub-tenant), canvassed the correctness of the above findings of the Courts below. As pointed out by the Supreme Court in Dattonpant v. Vithal Rao, AIR. 1975 SC. 1111. the power conferred on the High Court under Sec.50, thaugh not as narrow as the revisional power of the High Court under Sec. 115 CPC, is not wide enough to make the High Court a second Court of first appeal. Sri Tukaram Pal has not been able to show any justifiable grounds to interfere with these concurrent findings of the Courts below. Sri Tukaram Pai contended that the Courts below could not pass a decree for eviction against both the tenant and the sub-tenant in the same proceeding in view of the protection given to the sub-tenan,t under Section 22 of the Act and that by merely impleading the sub-tenant also as a party to the petition against the tenant, the protection given to the subtenant by Sec 22, could not bp defeated.